A  H>  2)  IB  m  ©  8 

DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE 

PHILADELPHIA  SOCIETY 

FOR 

PROMOTING  AGRICULTURE. 

AT  ITS  MEETING 
ON  THE 

TWENTIETH  OF  JULY,  1824. 

BY 

MATHEW  CAREY,  ESQ. 

MEMBER  OF  THE  AMERICAN  PHILOSOPHICAL  AND  ANTIQUA¬ 
RIAN  SOCIETIES. 


"  Whatever  tends  to  diminish  in  any  country  the  number  of 
“artificers  and  manufacturers,  tends  to  diminish  the  home 
“  market,  the  most  important  of  all  markets  for  the  rude  pro¬ 
duce  of  the  land;  and  thereby  still  further  to  discourage 
“  agriculture ” — Smith’s  Wealth  of  Nations. 

“If Europe  will  not  take  from  us  the  products  of  our  soil  on 
“  terms  consistent  with  our  interest,  the  natiiral  remedy  is  to 
w  contract  as  fast  as  possible,  our  wants  of  her” — A.  Hamilton . 

“  The  uniform  appearance  of  an  abundance  of  specie,  as 
“the  concomitant  of  a  flourishing  state  of  manufactures,  and 
“of  the  reverse,  where  they  do  not  prevail,  afford  a  strong  pre- 
“  sumption  of  their  favourable  operation  on  the  wealth  of  a 
“country.” — Idem. 

“  A  constant  and  increasing  necessity  on  the  part  of  the  United 
“States  for  the  commodities  of  Europe,  and  only  a  partial  and 
“  occasional  demand  for  their  own  in  return,  could  not  but  ex- 
“  pose  them  to  a  state  of  impoverishment ,  compared  with  the 
“  opulence  to  which  their  political  and  natural  advantages 
“authorise  them  to  aspire” — Idem. 


PRINTED  BY  ORDER  OF  THE  SOCIETY. 


FOURTH  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  CORRECTED* 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED  BY  JOSEPH  R.  A.  SKERRETT 


October,  1824. 


At  a  meeting  of  the  u  Philadelphia  Society 
for  promoting  Agriculture,”  held  July  20th, 
1824: 

The  annual  address  was  delivered  by  Ma¬ 
thew  Carey,  Esquire  : 

On  motion,  Resolved ,  that  the  thanks  of  the 
Society  be  presented  to  Mathew  Carey,  Esq. 
for  his  address,  and  that  he  be  requested  to 
furnish  a  copy  for  publication. 

W.  S.  WARDER, 
Assistant  Sec'ry, 


m 


CL0 


PREFACE- 


~s  To  the  Farmers  and  Planters  of  the  United  States . 

Fellow  Citizens, 

The  following  pages,  involving  a  subject  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  your  dearest  interests,  are 
:  respectfully  submitted  to  your  most  serious  consi¬ 
deration.  To  insure  the  doctrines  they  contain  a 
A  calm  and  candid  investigation,  it  will,  I  hope,  be 
*  ^sufficient  to  state  that  they  are  in  accordance  with 
\  the  practice  of  all  the  prosperous  nations  of  the 
^  old  world  ;  that  the  prosperity  of  those  nations  has 
?  been  and  is  in  proportion  to  the  extent  to  which 
.these  doctrines  are  carried  into  practice;  and  that 
1  r^they  are  adopted  generally,  in  a  greater  or  less  de- 
v*  gree,  in  the  codes  of  nearly  all  the  newly-formed 
*5  governments  of  the  western  hemisphere,  which  have 
had  the  sagacity  either  absolutely  to  prohibit,  or  to 
T/  impose  prohibitory  duties  on,  such  articles  as  would 
interfere  with  or  crush  the  national  industry. 

Independent  of  the  practice  of  those  nations, 
these  doctrines  are  in  unison  with  the  clear  and  ex¬ 
plicit  maxims  of  the  wisest  statesmen  the  world 
has  ever  produced — the  Edwards,  Walsinghams, 
Colberts,  Sullys,  and  Frederics,  beyond  the  Atlan¬ 
ta  tic — and  on  this  side,  the  Franklins,  Jeffersons,  and 
Hamiltons,  a  powerful  host.1 

The  soundness  of  these  doctrines  receives  fur¬ 
ther  corroboration,  from  the  melancholy  experience 
of  those  countries  where  they  have  been  disregard¬ 
ed — Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  Poland,  and  Ireland, 

1  For  a  few  of  the  maxims  of  these  three  great  states¬ 
men,  see  the  close  of  this  address. 


O© 


.0 

to 


\o\ 


IV 


1} reface. 

often  quoted,  but  quoted  in  vain.  Our  own  expe¬ 
rience,  subsequently  to  our  two  wars,  also  sheds 
strong  light  on  the  subject.  Russia,  for  two  years, 
1820  and  1821,  tried  the  effect  of  the  system  we 
pursue,  which  in  that  short  time  blighted  and  blast¬ 
ed  the  national  prosperity  as  much  as  a  war  of  ten 
years  duration  could  have  done.  A  circular  of  the 
emperor  Alexander,  draws  the  following  strong 
picture  of  the  national  suffering : — 

“  In  proportion  as  the  prohibitory  system  is  extended 
and  rendered  perfect  in  other  countries,  that  state  which 
“ pursues  the  contrary  system ,  makes  from  day  to  day  sacri - 
“fees  more  extensive  and  more  considerable.  *  *  *  It  offers 
“  a  continual  encouragement  to  the  manufactures  of  other 
“  countries — and  its  own  manufactures  perish  in  the  struggle 
6  ‘  which  they  are  as  yet  unable  to  maintain . 

“It  is  with  the  most  lively  feelings  of  regret  we  ac- 
“  knowledge  it  is  our  own  proper  experience  which  en- 
“  ables  us  to  trace  this  picture.  AGRICULTURE  WITH¬ 
OUT  A. MARKET,  INDUSTRY  WITHOUT  PROTEC- 
“  f  ION,  LANGUISH  AND  DECLINE.  SPECIE  IS  EX- 
“  PORTED,  AND  THE  MOST  SOLID  COMMERCIAL 
“  HOUSES  ARE  SHAKEN. 

“  Events  have  proved  that  our  AGRICULTURE  and  our 
“COMMERCE,  as  well  as  our  MANUFACTURING  IN- 
“  DUSTRY,  are  not  only  paralyzed,  BUT  BROUGHT  TO 
“  THE  BRINK  OF  RUIN.” 

In  consequence  of  this  calamitous  state  of  affairs, 
a  new  tariff  was  adopted  in  Russia,  in  1822,  which 
contains  about  340  prohibitions. 

Among  the  difficulties  attendant  on  the  discussion 
of  subjects  of  deep  interest,  one  of  the  most  serious 
js,  the  errors  in  point  of  fact,  into  which  partizans 
fall,  whereby  it  is  scarcely  possible  for  the  commu¬ 
nity  at  large  to  avoid  erroneous  deductions.  Facts 
are  the  pivots  on  which  sound  judgments  depend, 
on  practical  subjects;  and  where  they  are  mistaken 
or  misstated,  theories  erected  on  them,  are  as  unsafe 
as  edilicies  erected  oil  sandy  foundations. 


V 


Preface . 

No  subject  has  ever  been  discussed  in  this  coun¬ 
try,  on  which  so  many  and  such  glaring  errors  in 
point  of  fact  have  been  promulgated,  as  on  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  manufactures,  in  the  late  discussions  in 
and  out  of  congress.  It  were  endless  to  enume¬ 
rate  them.  Some  are  commented  on  in  the  body  of 
this  address — I  shall  here  briefly  touch  on  four  of 
the  most  striking,  out  of  fifty,  which  might  justly 
claim  refutation. 

I.  It  was  asserted  that  the  bill  would  prohibit, 
the  importation  of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise, 
to  the  amount  of  g  30,000,000  ! ! ! 

(f  What,  in  the  aggregate,  is  the  measure  proposed  ?  To 
(< prohibit  the  importation  of  manufactures  and  other  articles , 
“  to  the  amount  of  Jg  30,000,000  !  It  is  true,  we  are  told, 
“  that  a  certain  portion,  but  that  small,  will  not  be  prohi- 
(( bited  for  some  time  to  come.” — Mr.  Cambreleng's  Speech , 
Feb.  18,  1824. 

II.  That  it  would  impair  the  revenue  to  the 
amount  of  $7,000,000,  or,  (i  nearly  so  ! !” 

“  The  effect  of  this  Bill  would  be  to  prohibit ,  or  nearly 
“  so,  the  importation  of  goods,  the  duties  on  which,  from 
“  a  statement  laid  on  our  table,  amount  to  g  7,000,000.” 

■ — Mr.  Rankin's  Speech ,  p.  19. 

III.  That  the  cotton,  woollen,  and  hardware  ma¬ 
nufactures  receive  no  protection  by  duty  in  Great 
Britain. 

“  Mr.  Rankin  read  a  passage  from  page  168  of  Mr. 
“  Lowe’s  work,  to  show,  that  of  the  whole  manufactured 
“  productions  of  England,  consumed  at  home  and  abroad, 
“  estimated  at  L.  123,000,000,  the  cottons,  woollens  and 
“  hardware,  which  are  the  most  considerable  portion  of 
“  them,  and  which  received  no  protection  from  the  govern - 
iKn\ent  by  duty!!!  amounted  to  L. 80,000,000.” — Idem ,  p» 
26. 

IV.  That  England,  far  from  owing  her  prospe¬ 
rity  to  her  system  of  protection,  “  has  grown  rich 
in  spite  of  her  restrictions  on  trade 

“  England  has  gro'ivn  rich  in  spite  of  her  restrictions 
ts  upon  trade7  and  not  by  means  of  them.  Her  wisest  states- 
A  2 


VI 


Preface. 

“  men  are  desirous  of  removing  them,  and  can  trace  with 
“  unerring  certainty  to  their  operation,  a  large  part  of  the 
“  oppression  under  which  the  fundamental  interest  of  that 

nation  languishes,  and  is  doomed  to  languish.” — Me¬ 
morial  of  the  Philadelphia  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

All  these  assertions  are  utterly  destitute  of  the 
smallest  shadow  of  foundation.  On  the  two  first 
items  I  shall  simply  observe,  that  some  of  the  lead¬ 
ing  members  of  congress  who  used  those  arguments, 
not  only  abandoned  them  at  the  close  of  the  de¬ 
bates,  but  even  asserted,  that  far  from  reducing  the 
revenue,  the  tariff  bill  would  increase  it  2  or  3,000,- 
000  dollars  ! ! 

I  shall  discuss  the  third  and  fourth  points  in  con¬ 
nexion.  It  is  obvious  to  the  most  superficial  reader, 
that  the  fourth  is  a  vital  one,  and  ought  to  decide 
the  question  at  issue.  For  if  the  restrictive  system, 
which  has  been  carried  to  a  greater  extent  in  Great 
Britain,  than  in  any  other  country,  has  impeded 
her  prosperity,  it  irresistibly  follows  that  every  prin¬ 
ciple  of  sound  policy  dictates  that  we  should  avoid 
its  baleful  consequences.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it 
has  been,  as  contended  by  the  friends  of  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  manufactures,  the  main  source  of  her 
prosperity,  then  it  is  undoubtedly  worthy  of  our 
adoption,  so  far  as  suits  our  situation  and  circum¬ 
stances. 

When  it  is  considered  that  the  object  of  the  Bri¬ 
tish  “  restrictive  system”  is  to  sedulously  watch 
over,  and  guard  the  interests  and  industry  of  all  the 
subjects  of  Great  Britain— to  secure  the  freights  of 
the  British  trade  at  home  and  abroad  to  British 
merchants — to  secure  to  British  farmers,  mechan¬ 
ics,  and  manufacturers,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  ex¬ 
clusive  supply  of  the  domestic  market  with  the  pro¬ 
ducts  of  their  industry — to  purchase  articles  in  as 
rude,  and  to  sell  them  in  as  elaborated  a  state  a9 
possible,  so  as  to  provide  profitable  employment 


for  the  working  population — and  by  every  means 
to  force  the  products  of  the  national  industry  on 
all  other  nations — it  appears  just  as  rational  to 
assert  that  vessels  make  speedy  voyages  “  in  spite ” 
of  favourable  winds — that  the  Missouri  and  Missis¬ 
sippi  have  swelled  to  their  present  magnitude  s6  in 
spite”  of  their  tributary  streams — that  heat  is  pro¬ 
duced  “  in  spite”  of  fire— congelation  “  in  spite ” 
of  frost — or  that  the  earth  produces  copious  har¬ 
vests  “in  spite”  of  salutary  alternations  of  refresh¬ 
ing  rains  and  glowing  sunshine,  as  that  Great  Bri¬ 
tain  has  grown  rich  “  in  spite”  of  a  system  so  ad¬ 
mirably  and  infallibly  calculated  to  enrich  a  nation. 

I  shall  consider  the  restrictive  system  of  Great 
Britain  in  its  operation  upon  her  navigation — and 
upon  her  woollen — leather — silk — and  cotton  ma¬ 
nufactures. 

When  Cromwell  assumed  the  reins  of  govern¬ 
ment  in  England,  the  navigation  of  that  country 
was  at  a  very  low  ebb,  while  that  of  the  Dutch  was 
at  the  highest  pinnacle  of  greatness.  At  one  period 
they  built  1000  vessels  per  annum.2 3  Above  100 
vessels  entered  the  port  of  Amsterdam  in  a  day. 
The  Dutch  had  as  many  ships  as  eleven  kingdoms, 
including  England.3  They  enjoyed  the  chief  part 
of  the  carrying  trade  for  most  of  the  maritime 
powers  of  Europe ;  engrossed  the  freights  between 
England  and  her  colonies,  and  even  the  major  part 
of  the  coasting  trade  of  England;  supplied  her 
with  the  productions  of  a  large  portion  of  the  globe, 
and  in  return  carried  away  her  produce  and  manu¬ 
factures  to  all  other  nations.  While  the  Dutch  were 
thus  aggrandizing  themselves,  and  increasing  the 
national  “  wealth,  power  and  resources,55  English 

2  Macphcrson’s  Annals  of  Commerce,  vol,  II.  page  2 ST, 

3  Ibid. 


viii  Preface . 

Vessels  were  rotting  in  port.  Under  these  circum¬ 
stances,  distracted  as  were  the  affairs  of  England, 
the  rump  parliament  passed  the  navigation  act, 
whereby  the  trade  to  the  English  colonies  was  in¬ 
terdicted  to  foreigners — and  foreign  vessels  were 
prohibited  from  importing  into  England  any  articles 
not  the  production  or  manufacture  of  the  nations 
to  which  they  respectively  belonged.  This  produc¬ 
ed  an  immense  change  in  the  affairs  of  both  nations. 
It  laid  the  foundation  of  the  naval  ascendency  of 
England,  and  inflicted  a  mortal  wound  on  that  of 
the  Dutch.4 

Here  is  “  restriction”  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the 
word — and  here  the  principle  was  fairly  tested.  Is 
there  to  be  found  a  man  of  character  in  Europe  or 
America,  who  will  venture  to  assert,  that  the  navi¬ 
gation  of  Great  Britain,  the  corner  stone  of  her 
greatness  and  power,  has  prospered  “  in  spite  of  the 
u  restrictions ”  of  this  act,  and  so  many  others,  ex¬ 
tending  its  provisions?  I  trust,  not  one.  It  is  uni¬ 
versally  admitted,  that  the  restrictions  of  this  act, 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  naval  supremacy  of  Eng¬ 
land. 

It  now  remains  to  see  how  extravagantly  errone¬ 
ous  Mr.  Rankin’s  statement  is,  so  far  as  regards 
woollen  and  cotton  goods.  To  what  I  have  stated  in 
the  address,  on  the  subject  of  the  woollen  trade  of 
Great  Britain,  I  shall  barely  add,  that  according  to 
Pope’s  British  Customs,  woollen  cloths  of  all  des¬ 
criptions,  were  subject  in  1818  to  a  duty  of  \l.  145. 
0 d.  or  j§  7.33  per  yard.  The  permanent  duty  had 
been  ll.  Is.  6d. — to  which,  during  the  war,  were  ad¬ 
ded  one-third  and  one-fourth,  both  of  which  were  in 
full  force  in  1818.  So  much  for  woollen  goods  re- 

4  “  This  law  grievously  affected  the  Dutch,  who,  till 
(e  now,  had  been  almost  the  sole  carriers  of  merchandise 
“  from  one  country  to  another.”  Idem,  p.  443, 


Preface .  ix 

ceiving  “  no  protection  by  duty.”5  By  the  existing 
tariff,  enacted  in  1819,  the  duty  is  50  per  cent. 

The  next  article,  the  cotton  manufacture,  exhi¬ 
bits  the  most  magnificent  result  of  profound  policy 
that  the  world  has  ever  exhibited,  which,  if  strong 
facts  and  fair  deductions  were  allowed  to  have  their 
due  weight,  would  set  this  question  at  rest  forever. 
Of  cotton  England  does  not  produce  a  pound. 

Although  we  are  gravely  informed  that  the  ‘‘cot¬ 
ton  manufacture  receives  no  protection  by  duty,” 
it  is  a  fact,  that  printed  calicoes  from  beyond  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope  have  been  prohibited  altogether 
in  Great  Britain  for  more  than  a  century.  The  pro- 
hibition  remains  in  the  existing  Tariff,  and  is  en¬ 
forced  by  a  heavy  penalty: — 

“  Calicoes,  painted,  stained,  or  dyed,  in  Persia,  China, 
“  or  East  India,  shall  not  be  worn  or  used  in  this  king- 
“  dom.”  And  further :  <c  All  such  goods,  whether  mixed, 
<{  sewed,  or  made  up  together  for  sale  with  any  other 
<c  goods,  shall  be  forfeited,  and  the  person  in  whose  cus- 
*e  tody,  knowing  thereof,  the  same  shall  be  found,  or  that 
“  shall  dispose  thereof,  shall  forfeit  20GL” 

In  the  tariff  which  was  in  operation  in  1818,  the 
duty  on  cotton  goods,  not  otherwise  enumerated, 
was  85L  per  cent. 

The  duty  on  such  printed  cottons,  as  are  not 
prohibited,  is  at  present  75,  and  on  plain  white 
cottons  67  per  cent. 

5  I  cheerfully  do  Mr.  Rankin  the  justice  to  believe, 
that  his  error  was  unintentional.  Lowe's  idea,  as  may  be 
seen  on  consulting  his  text,  is,  that  the  three  manufactures 
are  brought  to  such  perfection  in  Great  Britain,  that 
they  could  not  be  affected  b}"  any  foreign  competition,  and 
therefore  do  not  require  any  protecting  duties.  The  fact 
of  the  existence  of  protecting  duties  on  all,  and  even 
prohibitory  duties  on  some  of  the  particular  articles  of 
those  branches,  was  too  well  known  to  have  escaped  such 
a  profound  writer  as  Lowe. 


X 


Freface. 

The  cotton  manufacture,  thus  protected  by  boun¬ 
ties,  prohibitions,  and  prohibitory  duties,  or  “  re - 
strictions  on  trade,”  has,  within  the  last  25  years, 
made  wonderful  progress.  The  average  importar 
tion  of  cotton,  for  10  years,  from  1799  to  1808, 
inclusive,  was  -  lbs.  56,780,950 

From  1809  to  1816  -  86,019,540 

In  1821  .  129,013,000 

Of  the  quantity  imported ,  a  considerable  portion 
was  re-exported,  probably  10  per  cent. 

The  consumption  in  1823,  was 
533,420  bales,  at  about  275  lbs. 
per  bale,  equal  to  lbs.  144,290,000 

In  1811,  according  to  Colquhoun,  the  amount  of 
the  manufacture  was  29,000.000/. — or  g  130,500,- 
000.  In  the  year  1823,  it  amounted,  according  to 
a  statement  in  parliament  by  Mr.  Huskisson,  to 
54,000,000/.  or  g  243,000,000. 

Thus  has  this  important  manufacture  been  nearly 
trebled  in  about  twenty  years — and  increased  80 
per  cent,  in  twelve  years.  Has  this  noble  industry 
arrived  at  its  present  state,' “in  spite  of  the  restric¬ 
tions  on  trade  ?”  The  answer  is  unequivocally  in 
the  negative.  When  it  was  first  introduced  into 
Great  Britain,  the  East  India  article  could  be  afford¬ 
ed  for  less  than  a  third  of  the  price  of  the  domestic; 
and,  had  its  importation  been  permitted,  the  British 
manufacturer  could  never  have  competed  with  the 
Asiatic. 

It  remains  to  present  a  synopsis  of  the  actual 
state  of  this  mighty  branch  of  industry,  which 
affords  more  solid  wealth  to  Great  Britain  than 
any  nation  ever  derived  from  one  source — 

I.  It  employs  500,000  families,  averaging  four 
persons  to  each,  or  a  seventh  part  of  the  popula¬ 
tion  of  the  nation. 


Preface .  xi 

II.  The  export  of  the  manufacture  is  about 
£2,000,000/.  equal  to  about  g  99,000,000.. 

III.  The  domestic  consumption  is  about  32,000,- 
000/.  equal  to  g  144,000,000. 

IV.  It  employs  a  capital  of  above  30,000,000/. 
or  g  135,000,000. 

To  these  three  great  articles,  I  shall  add  a  view 
of  the  leather  and  silk  manufactures : — 

The  original  duty  on  all  articles  made  of  leather, 
or  of  which  leather  is  the  most  valuable  part,  was 
90  per  cent.  The  war  duties  increased  it  to  142^. 
By  the  new  tariff1  it  is  75  per  cent. 

Silk,  like  cotton,  is  not  the  produce  of  Great  Bri¬ 
tain.  It  is  indigenous  in  countries  where  labour  is 
not  above  half  the  price  it  bears  in  England.  The 
manufacture  had,  therefore,  great  difficulties  to  en¬ 
counter.  But  by  bounties  and  drawbacks,  and  pro¬ 
tections  and  prohibitions,  it  has  been  fostered  to 
such  an  extent,  that  although  but  40,000  families 
are  engaged  in  it,  they  produce  nearly  as  much  as 
the  domestic  exports  of  the  United  States,  which 
domestic  exports,  let  it  be  observed,  are  almost  the 
only  means  we  possess  to  pay  for  our  imports  of  every 
kind  from  Europe,  Asia,  the  West  Indies,  and  South 
America.  The  proceeds  of  the  British  silk  manu¬ 
facture  in  1822,  were  10,000,000Z.6  equal  to  about 
8  45,000,000.  Our  whole  domestic  exports  for  that 
year  were  only  g  49,874,079! !! 

The  raw  material  of  the  silk  manufacture,  in 
1822,  cost  1,000,000/.7  or  g  4,500,000,  leaving  a 
clear  national  gain,  on  the  labour  of  40,000  persons, 
of  g  41,500,000,  to  be  divided  among  the  govern¬ 
ment,  the  capitalists,  and  the  work  people.  Thus 

6  Holt’s  Administration  of  the  affairs  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  p.  115. 

7 Idem,  p.. 98. 


xii  Preface, 

the  proceeds  of  the  labours  of  40,000  silk  manufac¬ 
turers  would  pay  for  above  four-fifths  of  the  sur¬ 
plus  of  the  labours  of  10,500,000  persons  in  the 
United  States,  and,  deducting  cotton  from  our  ex¬ 
ports,  fifty  per  cent,  more  than  the  surplus  of 
the  labours  of  9,850,000  !  Was  this  great  national 
benefit  produced  “  in  spite  of  the  restrictive  sys¬ 
tem?”  Certainly  not. 

I  fondly  hope  that  a  calm  review  of  these  facts, 
will  satisfy  every  candid  reader,  that  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  conceive  of  a  more  radical  or  enormous 
error,  than  the  one  so  confidently  promulgated  in 
the  Philadelphia  Memorial,  of  the  injurious  effects, 
produced  on  the  prosperity  of  Great  Britain,  by  the 
restrictive  system;  and  that  her  transcendent  power 
and  greatness  can  be  as  fairly  traced  to  that  system 
as  the  cheering  light  that  illumines  our  globe  can 
be  traced  to  the  beneficent  operation  of  the  resplen¬ 
dent  orb  of  day  rising  in  all  his  glory. 

In  this  question  I  never  had,  nor  have  I  now, 
any  personal  interest.  I  am  neither  farmer,  planter, 
mechanic,  manufacturer,  merchant,  nor  trader. 
Even  before  I  retired  from  business,  I  never  was 
affected,  except  as  a  member  of  the  community  at 
large,  by  the  pernicious  effects  of  our  withering 
policy — and,  having  arrived  at  that  period  of  exist¬ 
ence,  when 

“Life  can  little  more  supply, 

“Than  just  to  look  about  us,  and  to  die,” 

I  trust,  that,  duly  weighing  those  circumstances,  I 
cannot  be  suspected  of  any  sinister  motive. 

I  am  reckless  of  the  criticisms,  however  severe, 
and  however  merited,  which  may  be  passed  on  the 
style,  or  manner,  or  arrangement  of  this  little  work, 
of  which  it  may  be  truly  said:  res  negat  ornari, 
contenta  doceri .  In  discussions  of  such  important 
.subjects,  those  are  considerations  wholly  unimpor- 


Xlll 


Preface . 

tank  Errors  in  point  of  fact,  may  perhaps  have 
escaped  me — but  none  intentional,  and  I  hope,  if 
any,  none  important.  Some  of  my  deductions  may 
be  perhaps  strained  too  far — as  frequently  occurs 
with  those  who  enter  ardently  into  the  defence  of 
a  cause.  The  reader  will,  therefore,  do  well  to 
subject  them  to  a  severe  ordeal. 

There  is  one  point  adverted  to  in  the  body  of 
the  address,  on  which  I  wish  to  bestow  a  few  lines 
here.  It  is  the  repetition  of  arguments  heretofore 
frequently  adduced.  This  is  unavoidable.  The 
arguments  opposed  to  the  protection  of  manufac¬ 
tures,  viz.  the  danger  of  smuggling — the  demorali¬ 
zation  of  manufacturing  establishments* — the  de¬ 
struction  of  commerce  and  navigation,  &c.  &c.  &c. 
have  been  adduced  repeatedly  from  day  to  day  in 
speeches,  paragraphs,  essays,  resolutions  and  me¬ 
morials.  Some  of  them,  during  the  last  session  of 
congress,  have  been  placed  before  the  public  eye 
one  hundred  and  fifty  times.  Of  about  thirty  me¬ 
morials,  forty  speeches,  and  above  one  hundred 
essays  and  paragraphs  on  this  subject,  there  was 
scarcely  one  that  did  not  contain  a  denunciation  of 
the  horrors  of  smuggling — the  oppression  of  “  tax¬ 
ing  the  many  for  the  benefit  of  few,”  &c.  &c. 
When  old  arguments  are  thus  unceasingly  reite¬ 
rated  to  satiety  on  one  side,  can  the  other  be  justly 
debarred  from  rebutting  them  by  old  replies  ? 

July  26th. ,  1824.  M.  C. 


B 


ADDRESS,  «jc. 


Friends  and  Fellow  Citizens , 

WHEN  I  undertook  to  deliver  this  address,  it 
was  not  with  an  idea  of  suggesting  any  improve¬ 
ments  in  agricultural  implements — any  new  species 
of  manures — any  rules  for  the  time  or  manner  of 
sowing,  ploughing,  or  mowing* — or  for  the  cultiva¬ 
tion  of  any  exotics  likely  to  benefit  the  farmer.  On 
all  these  points,  I  freely  confess  myself  incompe¬ 
tent  to  descant.  My  experience  and  skill  in  farm¬ 
ing  are  both  very  limited.  Moreover,  such  details 
are  rendered  less  essential  by  the  learned  and  ela¬ 
borate  discourses  of  some  of  my  predecessors  in  this 
career,  who  have  united  deep  research  and  long  ex¬ 
perience  with  sound  and  rational  theories,  the  only 
sure  grounds  in  the  inquiry  after  truth. 

But  I  deceive  myself  greatly,  if  the  points  to 
which  I  wish  to  direct  your  attention  be  not  of  pa¬ 
ramount  importance  to  those  subjects  of  investiga¬ 
tion,  however  deeply  interesting  to  the  agriculturist. 
Their  object  is  to  lighten  his  labours  and  increase 
his  crops — mine,  to  secure  certain  markets  for  what 
he  does  raise.  Abstracted  from  the  latter,  the  for¬ 
mer  greatly  sinks  in  importance  and  value.  Nature 
empties  her  cornucopia  in  vain,  if,  after  the  farmer 
has  gone  through  his  painful  labours,  he  has  to  de¬ 
pend  for  a  remuneration  on  a  precarious  market, 
liable  to  the  fluctuations  of  demand  and  the  ruin¬ 
ous  reductions  of  price,  which  have  been  experienced 
in  this  country  three  or  four  times  within  the  last 
nine  years. 

Before  I  proceed  any  further,  let  me  observe,  that 


16  Address  delivered  before  the 

I  do  not  flatter  myself,  that  I  shall  offer  much  no¬ 
velty  on  this  subject.  It  has  been  too  frequently 
and  too  laboriously  investigated  for  some  years 
past,  to  afford  much  hope  of  that  kind  of  entertain¬ 
ment.  Few  novel  ideas  can  be  gleaned  up  on  a  sub¬ 
ject  which  has  occupied  so  much  attention.  But  I 
am,  nevertheless,  not  without  a  hope,  that  I  shall  be 
able  to  place  it  in  some  new  and  interesting  points 
of  light,  and  to  add  some  facts  to  the  mass  already 
elicited  on  this  topic.  At  all  events,  steering  clear 
of  those  theories,  the  result  of  lively  imaginations, 
which,  wholly  unsupported  by  experience,  only 
“  Lead  to  bewilder — and  dazzle  to  blind,” 

I  shall  support  every  position  I  advance  by  solid, 
incontrovertible  facts,  on  which  I  challenge  the  most 
rigorous  scrutiny. 

The  grand  object  of  this  address  is,  to  establish 
an  identity  of  interests  between  agriculture  and  ma¬ 
nufactures — and  the  impossibility  of  inflicting  a 
deep  or  lasting  injury  on  the  latter,  without  the  for¬ 
mer  suffering  severely.  Hence  I  shall'  endeavour 
to  prove — 

I.  That  the  farming  interest  has  not  experienced 
its  due  share  of  protection  from  the  government. 

II.  That  the  domestic  market  for  the  productions 
of  our  agriculture  is  greatly  superior  to  the  foreign. 

III. .  That,  with  the  exception  of  cotton,  the  ex¬ 
ports  of  our  staples  have  generally  diminished  in 
quantity  as  well  as  in  value  since  the  infancy  of  our 
government,  notwithstanding  the  unprecedented  in¬ 
crease  of  our  population. 

IV.  That  the  flattering  accounts  so  confidently 
published  to  the  world,  of  our  very  extraordinary 
prosperity,  are  wholly  erroneous ;  as  intense  dis¬ 
tress  pervades  large  and  important  sections  of  the 
country. 

V.  That  our  present  policy  operates  most  de- 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  IT 

structively  on  our  farmers,  by  diminishing  the  num¬ 
ber  of  their  customers,  and  increasing  that  of  their 
competitors,  and  to  an  extent,  which,  without  care¬ 
ful  examination,  appears  incredible. 

VI.  That  nothing  can  be  more  fallacious  in  point 
of  reasoning,  or  more  pernicious  in  its  effects,  when 
adopted  as  a  system,  than  the  idea  so  confidently 
held  out,  that  the  protection  of  manufactures  woulU 
operate  injuriously  on  the  farmers. 

VII.  That  the  protection  of  manufactures  would 
be  beneficial  not  only  to  agriculture  but  to  the  com¬ 
mercial  interest,  and  even  to  the  British  merchants 
and  manufacturers. 

I  shall  then  endeavour  to  obviate  some  of  the  most 
prevalent  and  popular  objections  to  the  legislative 
protection  of  manufactures. 

I.  Neglect  of  protecting  the  farming  interest  of  the 
United  States . 

My  first  position  is,  that  the  interests  of  the  farm¬ 
ing  portion  of  the  community  have  not  received  from 
the  government  that  degree  of  attention  and  protec¬ 
tion,  to  which,  from  their  importance,  and  the  great 
number  of  that  description  of  our  citizens,  they  are 
entitled. 

Breadstuffs,  the  chief  articles  produced  by  this 
class,  have  been  for  about  seven  years  excluded  from 
domestic  consumption  by  nearly  all  the  nations  of 
Europe.  During  all  this  time,  our  government,  on 
which  they  have  a  valid  and  indefeasible  claim  for 
protection  and  support,  has  never  made  the  slight¬ 
est  effort,  by  retaliation  or  otherwise,  to  force  those 
nations  to  abandon  this  system,  and  to  receive  in 
payment  for  their  manufactures  those  articles  which 
constitute  the  main  dependence  of  one-half  of  our 
entire  population,  whose  interests  are  thus  sacri¬ 
ficed  by  the  existing  policy,  which  operates  as  the 


1 8  Address  delivered  before  the 

bane  of  the  grain-growing  states.  Nor  has  the  go¬ 
vernment  made  any  effort  to  create  a  domestic  mar¬ 
ket  for  the  produce  thus  rejected  abroad,  a  most 
imperious  duty,  of  which  the  dereliction  is  unsus¬ 
ceptible  of  justification.  On  the  contrary,  the  ope¬ 
ration  of  our  system,  as  shall  appear  under  its  pro¬ 
per  head,  has  been  uniformly  and  steadily  to  cir¬ 
cumscribe  the  domestic  market. 

The  deleterious  effect  of  the  exclusion  of  our 
breadstuff's  on  the  farming  interest  may  be  perceiv¬ 
ed  by  the  following  statement.  The  British  ports 
were  closed  against  them  in  Nov.  1817.  The  occlu¬ 
sion  reduced  the  value  and  the  quantity  of  our  ex¬ 
ports  of  flour  most  ruinously. 


Exports  of  flour  from  the  United  States . 


Flour. 

Value. 

1817 

-  barrels  1,479,198 

-  817,751,376 

1818 

1,157,697 

11,576,917 

1819 

750,660 

6,005,280 

1820 

1,177,036 

5,296,664 

1821 

1,056,119 

4,298,043 

1822 

827,265 

5,103,280 

1823 

756,246 

5,057,195 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  reduction  of  price 
affects  the  whole  quantity  purchased  for  home  con¬ 
sumption,  amounting  probably  to  about  4,800,000 
barrels  per  annum. 

Alarming  prospects  now  present  themselves  to 
the  grain-growing  states.  By  recent  accounts, 
which  appear  deserving  of  credit,  we  learn,  that 
flour  can  be  delivered  on  board  ship  at  Dantzic, 
at  four  dollars  per  barrel — and  that  arrangements 
are  made  there  for  supplying  the  West  India  islands 
on  a  large  scale,  which  will  greatly  impair  the  chief 
market  of  our  farmers.  This  is  all  that  was  want¬ 
ing  to  cap  the  climax  of  their  suffering. 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  19 

The  pernicious  inroad  on  the  prosperity  of  the 
farming  interest  has  not,  I  repeat,  attracted  the 
least  attention  on  the  part  of  our  government.  To 
this  neglect,  the  fostering  care  bestowed  on  the  na¬ 
vigating  interest,  of  which  1  annex  two  examples, 
out  of  scores  which  might  be  adduced,  forms  a  strik¬ 
ing  contrast. 

By  the  navigation  laws  of  Great  Britain,  in  force 
for  nearly  two  centuries,  foreign  vessels  were  pro¬ 
hibited  from  entering  the  ports  of  her  colonies  gene¬ 
rally.  The  mercantile  interest  of  the  United  States 
regarded  this  exclusion  as  unjust  and  oppressive, 
and  called  on  the  government  to  interfere  to  procure 
its  abrogation.  The  government  did  not  hesitate  to 
place  itself  “in  an  armour  and  an  attitude”  of  defi¬ 
ance — to  brave  the  power  of  Great  Britain — and  to 
exclude  from  our  ports  vessels  coining  from  her 
West  India  and  North  American  colonies,  unless 
those  ancient  restrictions  were  abrogated  in  our 
favour.  An  act  for  this  purpose  was  passed,  April, 
18,  1818.  There  was  then  no  alarm  about  the  dan¬ 
ger  of  provoking  the  vengeance  of  Great  Britain,  on 
which  such  an  outcry  has  been  recently  raised. 
Notwithstanding  the  parade  which  is  made  of  “  the 
liberality  of  the  present  times” — the  reprobation 
by  “  the  most  celebrated  British  statesmen”  of 
“  the  exploded  restrictive  system” — the  determi¬ 
nation  to  “cut  the  cords  that  tie  commerce  to  the 
“  earth,”  and  all  those  other  sounding  phrases  about 
which  we  have  had  so  many  “flourishes  of  trum- 
“  pets,”  Great  Britain  strenuously  resisted  this 
measure,  resolved  to  risk  all  the  consequences,  in 
support  of  her  restrictions,  and  thereby  inflicted 
severe  distress  and  wretchedness  on  her  colonies, 
which  made  the  most  earnest  applications  to  parlia¬ 
ment  for  a  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  laws.  To  afford 
them  some  relief,  and  to  counteract  the  energetic 
"Pleasures  of  our  government,  free  ports  were  open- 


20  Address  delivered  before  the 

ed  in  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  and  Bermuda, 
where  it  was  supposed  our  citizens  would  gladly 
convey  our  produce  for  the  supply  of  the  interdicted 
British  islands.  Congress — determined  not  to  allow 
its  measures  to  be  defeated  in  this  indirect  mode; 
and  also  to  force  Great  Britain  to  abandon  her  re¬ 
strictive  system — passed  a  supplementary  act  on 
the  15th  of  May,  1820,  by  which  the  intercourse 
with  those  free  ports,  was  placed  on  the  same  foot¬ 
ing  as  that  with  the  other  colonies.  Thus  defeated. 
Great  Britain  had  no  alternative  but  to  devote  its 
colonies  to  ruin,  or  to  abandon  a  system  which  had 
been  regarded  with  as  much  reverence  as  a  faithful 
Moslem  regards  the  Koran.  This  was  a  bitter  pill 
to  swallow.  It,  however,  submitted,  and  repealed 
the  system,  by  an  act  passed  June  24,  1822.8  The 
corresponding  repeal  on  our  part,  took  place  on  the 
24th  of  the  following  August. 

8  It  is  remarkable,  that  this  repeal,  thus  wrung  with  so 
much  difficulty  from,  and  adopted  with  so  ill  a  grace  b}r, 
the  Britisli  government,  has  been  adduced  in  our  news¬ 
papers  and  in  congress,  as  one  of  the  striking  proofs  of  the 
liberality  of  the  times  and  of  the  abandonment  of  her  re¬ 
strictive  system  by  Great  Britain !  So  erroneous  are  the 
views  presented  to  the  American  nation  by  our  political 
economists ! 

The  above  statement,  however  incredible,  is  borne 
out  by  the  declaration  of  Mr.  P.  P.  Barbour,  who  ranks 
among  the  foremost  opposers  of  the  protection  of  ma¬ 
nufacture^ — “Within  a  few  years  Great  Britain,  after 
“successively  relaxing  the  rigour  of  her  double  colonial 
“monopoly  in  her  West  India  Islands,  has  extended  the 
“system  of  free-ports  to  almost  all  those  islands;  and 
“  the  United  Slates  are  now  enabled  to  import  that  colonial 
“  produce  in  their  own  ships ,  instead  of  receiving  it  imported 
“in  British  ships  only!!!”  Mr.  Barbour’s  speech,  page  27. 
When  such  men  as  Mr.  Barbour  fall  into  such  egregious 
and  palpable  errors  on  so  plain  a  subject,  can  we  wonder 
at  the  mistakes  of  our  legislation  ? 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  2 1 

This  struggle,  which  lasted  above  four  years,  in¬ 
flicted  on  the  farming  interest,  engaged  in  the  cul¬ 
ture  or  production  of  those  articles  calculated  for 
the  British  West  Indies,  the  most  severe  injury,  by 
depriving  them  of  a  most  important  market.  The 
suffering  fell  with  peculiar  weight  on  some  of  the 
ports  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  which  greatly 
depended  on  this  trade.  Many  persons,  thus  sud¬ 
denly  cut  off  from  their  resources,  were  actually 
ruined. 

These  were  efforts  and  sacrifices  solely  for  the 
benefit  of  the  navigating,  at  the  expense  of  the 
farming  interest.  They  were  cheerfully  borne  with¬ 
out  murmur  for  above  three  years.  At  length,  to¬ 
wards  the  close  of  1821,  the  people  of  Virginia, 
writhing  under  the  suffering  inflicted  by  those  me  a-' 
sures,  began  to  remonstrate  with  congress,  against 
a  continuance  of  the  system,  which,  they  believed, 
would  prove  unavailing,  as  it  was  apprehended  the 
British  government  would  never  abandon  its  restric¬ 
tions.  The  following  extract  from  a  set  of  resolu¬ 
tions  adopted  by  a  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Nor¬ 
folk,  Dec.  21,  1821,  affords  some  idea  of  the  extent 
of  the  injury  sustained  in  Virginia  by  those  retalia¬ 
tory  measures. 

“  Resolved ,  That  the  act  of  congress,  entitled  “  an  act 
“  concerning  navigation,”  passed  on  the  18th  of  April, 
“  1818;  the  act  of  congress,  entitled  “an  act  supplemen- 
“  tary  to  an  act  entitled  “  an  act  concerning  navigation,” 
“  passed  on  the  15th  of  May,  1820,  so  far  as  they  establish 
“  the  restrictive  system,  by  which  British  vessels  are  pro- 
“  hibited  from  bringing  the  productions  of  the  British  co- 
“  lonies  into  our  ports,  and  taking  away  those  of  our  cOun- 
“  try  in  return ;  are  highly  pernicious  to  this  Borough  and 
“  District ,  destroying  our  commerce ,  and  injuring  all  classes 
“  of  our  citizens  ;  while  at  the  same  time ,  they  are  contrary  to 
“  the  true  policy  of  the  United  Statest  operating  most  une - 
“  qually  and  partially  upon  different  sections  and  portions  o  f 


22  Address  delivered  before  the 

“  the  Union ,  burdening  the  products  of  agriculture  in  a  fruit* 
“  less  attempt  to  promote  the  shipping  interest ,  diminishing  the 
“  revenue ,  and  threatening ,  in  the  issue,  to  produce  many  great 
“  and  lasting  evils  to  the  whole  nation .” 

To  the  Virginia  memorials  and  representations, 
the  mercantile  interest  throughout  the  United  States 
made  the  most  decided  opposition.  The  whole  sub¬ 
ject  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  congress,  which, 
after  an  elaborate  investigation,  made  a  report  re¬ 
commending  a  perseverance  in  the  system ;  choos¬ 
ing,  on  national  grounds,  to  endure  temporary  suf¬ 
ferings,  however  severe,  for  the  sake  of  permanent 
advantages.  The  report  was  adopted. 

It  remains  to  ascertain  the  extent  of  the  tonnage, 
for  the  sake  of  which  these  measures,  so  pernicious 
to  our  farmers,  particularly  those  of  the  southern 
states,  were  adopted.  Our  vessels  have  free  access 
to  the  British  West  India  Islands  at  present,  and 
have  had  for  nearly  two  years.  The  American  ton¬ 
nage  entered  inwards  from  those  islands  during  the 
year  1823  was  only  73,366  tons,  and  outwards  only 
68,350.  To  secure  the  freight  of  this  tonnage  to  our 
merchants,  we  sacrificed  for  above  four  years  the 
sale  of  a  large  portion  of  our  produce,  and  gave  en¬ 
couragement  to  the  farmers  of  Canada,  Nova  Sco¬ 
tia,  and  New  Brunswick,  to  extend  the  cultivation 
of  rival  articles,  which  will  permanently  interfere 
with  the  interests  of  our  own  farmers. 

Again.  France,  to  encourage  her  navigation,  laid 
extra  duties  on  produce  imported  in  foreign  ves¬ 
sels.  In  this  case,  as  in  the  former,  the  energies  of 
our  government  were  arrayed  in  defence  of  the  na¬ 
vigating  interest.  An  act  was  passed,  May  15, 
1820,  imposing  a  countervailing  duty  of  eighteen 
dollars  per  ton  on  French  vessels  entering  the  ports 
of  the  United  States.  This  act  remained  in  force 
for  above  two  years,  and  greatly  circumscribed  the 


jf/iiladelphia  Agricultural  Society .  23 

sales  of  our  produce  in  France ;  as  a  large  portion 
of  the  direct  intercourse  between  the  two  countries 
was  suspended.  After  an  arduous  struggle,  and 
considerable  negociations,  the  French  government 
was  finally  obliged,  though  with  great  reluctance, 
to  repeal  its  discriminatory  duties,  which  of  course 
produced  a  repeal  of  our  retaliatory  system. 

Let  this  course  of  measures  be  compared  with 
the  neglect  of  the  interests  of  the  farming  portion 
of  the  nation,  and  there  will  be  found  an  incalcula¬ 
ble  difference  between  them.  On  the  one  side  the 
most  paternal  solicitude — on  the  other,  a  sovereign 
indifference. 

A  comparison  between  this  disregard  of  the  in¬ 
terests  of  the  farmers,  and  the  sensibility  dis¬ 
played  respecting  those  of  the  cotton  and  tobacco 
planters,  would  be  equally  striking.  Among  the 
reasons  recently  urged  with  most  force  against  the 
protection  of  manufactures,  was  the  danger  of  pro¬ 
voking  the  wrath  of  Great  Britain,  and  inducing  her 
to  avenge  herself,  by  encouraging  the  culture  of 
cotton  in  Egypt,  the  Brazils,  and  South  America, 
and  of  tobacco  in  the  Crimea,10  so  as  to  narrow  the 

i°  « if  we  must  not  purchase  the  manufactures  of  Great 
“  Britain,  the  latter  will  not  purchase  our  cotton,  rice,  or 
“  tobacco. 

“I  appeal  to  men  conversant  with  the  subject,  that  she 
€t  can  supply  herself  in  half  a  dozen  or  ten  years  elsewhere  ; 
<£  with  rice  from  the  East  Indies,  cotton  from  Brazil,  and 

tobacco  from  the  Crimea.  She  does  not,  because  she  pur- 
<c  chases  the  raw  material  with  the  produce  of  her  own 
“  warehouses :  and  the  trade  is  mutually  gainful.” — Judge 
Cooper’s  Tract  on  the  Alteration  of  the  Tariff,  p.  14. 

“  The  United  States  must  prepare  to  see  the  East  In- 
“  dies,  the  Brazils,  the  Black  Sea,  every  quarter  of  the 
“  habitable  globe,  stimulated  by  bounty  to  itself  and  by 
<e  restrictions  upon  us,  to  take  our  place  in  the  markets 
<e  of  Europe  and  to  leave  those  commodities  [cotton  and  to- 
"  bacco]  upon  our  hands  l”— Philadelphia  Memorial 


24'  Address  delivered  before  the 

market  for  our  exports  of  those  staples,  one  of 
which,  at  least,  that  is,  cotton,  is  as  essential  to  her, 
as  food  for  her  subjects.  And  of  the  other  she  con¬ 
sumes  only  14,000  hhds.  per  annum.  All  the  sur¬ 
plus  she  takes,  beyond  that  quantity,  is  for  expor¬ 
tation. 

II.  Great  superiority  of  the  domestic  over  the  fo¬ 
reign  market. 

Of  the  population  of  the  United  Statesat  present, 
the  agriculturists  of  all  descriptions,  comprise  about 
8,500,000,  of  whom  I  assume  that  about  1,500,000 
are  tobacco,  sugar,  and  cotton  planters,  and  7,000,- 
000  farmers.  There  are  about  1,500,000  persons 
engaged  in  manufactures  and  the  mechanic  arts, 
and  500,000  in  the  learned  professions,  in  com¬ 
merce,  in  shopkeeping,  and  living  on  their  means, 
&c.  The  chief  of  these  calculations  are  predicated 
on  the  late  census. 

The  consumption  of  food  and  drink 
by  the  2,000,000  who  purchase  those  ne¬ 
cessaries  from  the  farmers,  may  be  esti¬ 
mated  at  an  average  of  about  45  dollars 
per  annum,  which  at  once  affords  a  & 
market  to  that  interest,  of,  90,000,000 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  propor¬ 
tion  of  persons  depending  on  manufac¬ 
tures  and  the  mechanic  arts,  who  actu¬ 
ally  work  at  them.  One-half  of  the 
number,  or  750,000,  are  males,  of  whom 
nearly  two-thirds  are  above  13  years  of 
age,  when  they  generally  commence 
their  apprenticeship.  This  would  give 
500,000  male  workers;  and  it  is  well 
known  that  a  very  large  number,  pro¬ 
bably  100,000  females,  are  employed  in 
cotton  and  some  other  manufactures, 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society ,  25 

Brought  forward  §  90,000,000 

and  that  very  many  persons,  male  and 
female,  belonging  to  the  farming  class, 
are  employed  by  manufacturers.  But  I 
will  only  assume  500,000  work  people, 
male  and  female,  and  that  they  consume 
of  timber,  hemp,  flax,  cotton,  hides, 
skins,  tallow,  fuel,  &c.  &c.  an  average 
of  66f  cents  per  day,  or  four  dollars  per 
week,  which  amounts  to  -  104,000,000 

Making  a  total  of  the  domestic  mar¬ 
ket,  of . S  194,000,000 

Now  what  have  we  to  set  against  this,  of  the  fo¬ 
reign  market,  which,  by  some  of  our  statesmen,  is 
regarded  as  almost  alone  worthy  of  attention,  and 
which  costs  us  an  enormous  expense  for  fleets,  for 
foreign  ministers,  he,  and  which  involved  us  in  an 
expensive  and  perilous  warfare  ?  The  domestic 
exports  of  the  last  year,  were  as  follow  : 

Cotton . $  20,445,520 

Tobacco .  6,282, 672 

Proceeds  of  the  forest — skins,  and 
furs,  naval  stores,  pot  and  pearl  $ 
ashes,  lumber,  &c.  -  -  4,498,911 

Vegetable  and  animal  food  10,513,855 

Other  agricultural  productions,  viz. 
indigo,  flaxseed,  hops,  8tc.  -  404,679 

_ _  15  417  445 

Manufactures  ......  2,357,527 

Proceeds  of  the  sea .  1,658,224 

Uncertain .  994,020 

Total  .......  $  47,155,408 


Thus  the  following  facts  appear: — 

1.  That  the  foreign  is  not  one-fourth  of  the  do¬ 
mestic  market. 


c 


£6  Address  delivered  before  the 

2.  That  three-fifths  of  our  exports  are  raw  mate¬ 
rials,  imperiously  necessary  for  the  employment  of 
the  subjects  of  the  nations  by  which  they  are  re¬ 
ceived. 

3.  That  the  farmers,  properly  so  called,  (in  con¬ 
tradistinction  to  the  cotton  and  tobacco  planters,) 
who  comprise  about  7,000,000  of  our  population, 
have  little  or  no  interest  in  our  foreign  markets, 
beyond  g  15,417,445,  or  about  g  £.20  per  head — 
whereas  they  are  interested  in  the  domestic  market 
to  the  amount  of  above  g  190,000,000,  or  about  g  £7 
per  head. 

These  calculations  do  not  pretend  to  critical  ex¬ 
actness,  which  in  this  case  is  unattainable — but  that 
they  are  substantially  correct,  and  that  no  modifi¬ 
cation  or  alteration  of  which  they  may  be  suscepti¬ 
ble,  can  materially  affect  the  deductions  from  them, 
I  feel  perfect  confidence. 

III.  Diminution  of  our  exports . 

The  period  for  fourteen  years  immediately  pre¬ 
ceding  the  year  1789,  had  paralized  the  industry  of 
the  nation,  exhausted  its  resources,  and  arrested 
it  in  its  career  to  prosperity.  From  1775  to  178£, 
hostilities  had  overspread  the  land,  with  all  the 
usual  characteristics  of  horror  and  devastation 
which  accompany  civil  wars.  From  1782  to  1789, 
when  the  new  constitution  went  into  operation,  a 
peace,  more  deleterious,  if  possible,  than  war  it¬ 
self,  succeeded.  Immense  importations,  far  beyond 
the  value  of  the  surplus  produce  of  the  country,  had 
taken  place,  and  spread  impoverishment  and  dis¬ 
tress  throughout  the  nation.  The  specie,  of  which 
immense  sums  had  been  imported  during  the  war, 
in  the  shape  of  foreign  loans,  and  funds  to  pay  the 
armies  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  was  exported 
in  1783,  4,  and  5,  to  pay  for  the  manufactures  of 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  £7 

Europe  and  Asia.11  Our  own  manufactures  were 
crushed,  and  our  manufacturers  ruined.  The 
importers  and  merchants  generally  underwent  the 
same  fate,  and  the  farmers  followed  in  their  train. 
The  major  part  of  our  citizens  were  in  debt,  and 
few  had  the  means  of  payment.13  To  rescue  them 

11  “  Goods  were  imported  to  a  much  greater  amount  than 
“  coidd  be  consumed  or  paid  for  .” — Minot’s  History  of  the 
Insurrection  in  Massachusetts,  p.  2. 

“  On  opening  their  ports,  an  immense  quantity  of  foreign 
“  merchandise  was  introduced  into  the  country ,  and  they  were 
“  tempted  by  the  sudden  cheapness  of  imported  goods,  and  by 
“  their  own  wants,  to  purchase  beyond  their  capacities  for 
“payment.” — Marshal's  Life  of  Washington ,  V.p.  75, 

“  Silver  and  gold ,  -which  had  circulated  largely  in  the  latter 
“  years  of  the  -war ,  -were  returning ,  by  the  usual  course  of 
“  trade ,  to  those  countries ,  whence  large  quantities  of  neces - 
“  sary  and  unnecessary  commodities  had  been  imported — - 
Belknap’s  History  of  New  Hampshire,  II.  p.  356. 

“  'The  usual  means  of  remittance  by  articles  the  growth  of 
“  the  country ,  was  almost  annihilated ,  and  little  else  than  specie 
“  remained ,  to  answer  the  demands  incurred  by  importations. 
“  The  money ,  of  course ,  was  drawn  off;  and  this  being  made- 
“  quaie  to  the  purpose  of  discharging  the  whole  amount  of  fo- 
“  reign  contracts ,  the  residue  was  chiefly  sunk  by  the  bank - 
“  ruptcies  of  the  importers”— Minot’s  History  of  the  Insur¬ 
rection  in  Massachusetts,  p.  13. 

“  Laws  were  passed  ,  by  which  property  of  every  kind  was 
(1  made  a  legal  tender  in  the  payment  of  debts,  though  paya- 
“  ble  according  to  contract  in  gold  or  silver.  Other  laws 
“  installed  the  debt,  so  that  of  sums  already  due,  only  a 
“  third,  and  afterwards  only  a  fifth,  was  annually  recover- 
“  able  in  the  courts  of  law.” — Belknap's  History  of  JYew 
Hampshire ,  II.  p.  352. 

12  “  The  bonds  of  men  whose  competency  to  pay  their 
“  debts  was  unquestionable,  could  not  be  negociated  but 
“  at  a  discount  of  thirty ,  forty ,  and  fifty  per  centum  :  real 
“  property  was  scarcely  vendible ;  and  sales  of  any  articles 
“  for  ready  money  could  be  made  only  at  a  ruinous  loss. 
“  The  prospect  of  extricating  the  country  from  those  em- 
“  barrassments  was  by  no  means  flattering.  The  mass  of 


28  Address  delivered  before  the 

from  impending  destruction,  paper  money  was 
emitted — tender  and  instalment  laws  enacted — the 
proceedings  of  the  Courts  of  Common  Pleas  ar¬ 
rested — and  the  pillars  of  society  shaken;  for  a 
most  serious  insurrection,  the  consequence  of  ge¬ 
neral  distress,  succeeded,  which,  by  the  want  of 
talent  and  energy  on  the  part  of  the  insurgents, 
and  the  promptitude  and  patriotism  of  the  friends  of 
order,  was  prevented  from  overthrowing  the  govern¬ 
ment,  and  giving  the  reins  to  anarchy  and  despot¬ 
ism.  Such  were  the  bitter  fruits  of  uncontrolled  im¬ 
portations  at  an  early  period  of  our  history. 

This  is  a  brief  sketch  of  the  melancholy  state  of 
affairs,  previous  to  the  year  1790,  which  I  propose 
to  compare  with  the  year  1823.  In  the  former  year, 
the  nation  was  in  its  infancy,  recovering  from  the 
calamities  of  the  preceding  period  of  fourteen  years. 
Peace  reigned  in  Europe  and  the  West  Indies.  We 
enjoyed  none  of  those  dazzling,  but  delusive  ad¬ 
vantages,  which  the  subsequent  revolutionary  wars 
conferred  on  us.  The  year  1823,  on  the  contrary, 
was  preceded  by  eight  years  of  profound  peace,  su¬ 
perabundant  harvests,  and  the  enjoyment  of  every 
natural,  moral,  and  political  advantage,  which  a 
great  statesman,  in  the  widest  range  of  his  fancy, 

<(  national  labour  and  national  wealth,  was  consequently  di- 
“minished” — Marshal’s  Life  of  Washington,  V.  p.  88. 

“ Property ,  when  brought  to  sale  under  execution ,  sold  at  so 
il  low  a  price  as  frequently  ruined  the  debtor  without  paying 
“  the  creditor.  A  disposition  to  resist  the  laws  became  com- 
“  mon :  assemblies  were  called  oftener  and  earlier  than 
“  the  constitution  or  laws  required.” — Eamsay’s  S.  Caro¬ 
lina,  II.  p.  428. 

“In  every  part  of  these  states,  the  scarcity  of  money  is 
“  so  great,  or  the  difficulty  of  paying  debts  has  been  so 
“  common,  that  riots  and  combinations  have  been  formed  in 
“  many  places ,  and  the  operations  of  civil  government  have 
“  been  suspended .” — Dr.  Hugh  Williamson. 


29 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society , 

could  require,  to  insure  the  highest  degree  of  pros¬ 
perity  and  happiness,  national  and  individual,  of 
which,  in  this  sublunary  state,  we  are  susceptible. 
The  latter  year,  therefore,  ought  to  exhibit  a  tran¬ 
scendent  superiority  over  the  former.  How  lament¬ 
ably  erroneous  such  a  calculation  would  be,  will  ap¬ 
pear  from  the  following  appalling  picture. 


Exports  of  our  chief  staples ,  except  cotton ,  in  the 
years  1790  and  1825. 


i _ 

i 

1790. 

1823. 

Increase. 

Decrease. 

Flour 

bbls. 

724,623 

756,702 

32,079 

Wheat 

bush. 

1,124,456 

4,272 

1,120,184 

Indian  corn 

bush. 

2,102,137 

749,034 

1,353,103 

Rice 

tierc. 

100,845 

101,365 

520 

Shingles 

No. 

67,331,115 

40,383,000 

26,948,115 

T  obacco 

hhds. 

118,460 

99,009 

19,451 

T ark  pitch 
Staves  and 

bbls. 

93,942 

45,032 

48,910 

heading 

feet. 

36,402,301 

18,677,000 

17,725,301 

Indigo 

lbs. 

612,119 

2,990 

|  609,129 

In  the  year  1790  our  population  was  3,929,326. 
It  is  at  present  about  10,500,000* — being  an  increase 
of  about  165  per  cent.  According  to  all  rational 
calculations,  there  ought  to  be  a  great  increase  in 
the  exportable  surpluses  of  our  great  staples ;  as  a 
family  of  ten  persons  ought  to  produce  150  per  cent, 
more  than  one  of  four.  But  it  appears,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  that  far  from  advancing,  we  have  greatly  re¬ 
trograded,  for,  (although  there  is  a  small  increase  in 
flour  and  rice,)  it  appears  that  we  exported  in  1 823, 
far  less  wheat,  Indian  corn,  shingles,  pitch  and  tar, 
staves  and  heading,  and  indigo — and  also  less 
tobacco  than  we  did  in  1790.  This  is  a  truly  mor¬ 
tifying  view,  and  contrasts  strongly  with  the  florid 
descriptions  of  our  great  and  growing  prosperitv, 
on  which,  to  serve  the  purposes  of  the  moment,  our 
orators  descant  so  eloquently.  As  there  was  no 
c  2 


50 


Address  delivered  before  the 


discrimination  made  between  our  foreign  and  do¬ 
mestic  exports  at  that  period,  I  cannot  state  the 
diminution  in  the  value  of  the  latter — but  it  must 
obviously  be  very  considerable.  The  discrimination 
began  in  1796,  when  our  population  was  about 
4,750,000.  Our  domestic  exports  in  that  year  were 
g  40,764,097,  or  about  g  8.50  per  head.  Last  year 
they  were  g  47,155,408,  or  about  4.60  per  head  of 
our  whole  population.  Here  is  a  most  lamentable 
falling  off*!  But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  the  evil. 
In  1796,  we  exported  only  6,108,729  lbs.  of  cotton, 
value  about  g  1,500,000 — whereas  in  1823  we  ex¬ 
ported  173,723,270  lbs.  value  g  20,445,520.  The 
cultivators  of  cotton  in  1796,  were  probably  about 
20,000.  They  are  now  about  650,000.  Deducting 
these  numbers  from  the  population,  and  the  value 
of  cotton  from  the  exports,  it  will  exhibit  a  falling 
off,  which  probably  no  nation  has  ever  exceeded  in 
the  same  space  of  time. 


Total  population 
Engaged  in  cot¬ 
ton  culture 


1796. 

4,750,000  Total  domestic 
exports  § 
20,000  Export  of  cotton 


40,764,097 

1,500,000 


Remain 


-  4,730,000 


All  other  domes¬ 
tic  exports  $  39,264,097 


1823. 


Total  population  10,500,000 
Engaged  in  cot¬ 
ton  culture  650,000 


Total  domestic 
exports 

Export  of  cot¬ 
ton 


Remain 


9,850,000 


All  other  do¬ 
mestic  ex¬ 
ports 


§47,155,408 

20,445,520 


§26,709,888 


Thus,  that  part  of  our  population  not  engaged  in 
the  culture  of  cotton,  exported  in  1796  at  the  rate 


31 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society. 

of  88t2o0^  per  head — whereas  last  year,  they  export- 
ed  only  $2T7oV*  Ponder  well,  my  fellow  citizens, 
on  this  astounding  fact,  which,  alone,  would  be  suf¬ 
ficient  to  seal  the  condemnation  of  the  withering 
system  we  pursue. 

To  add  to  the  distress  and  mortification  arising 
from  this  view  of  our  affairs,  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  reduced  as  is  the  quantity  of  our  exports,  the 
foreign  markets  are  almost  every  where  glutted 
with  them.  The  accounts  received  from  the  West 
Indies,  South  America,  and  Gibraltar,  state  that  our 
flour  is  often  sold  for  the  mere  cost,  losing  all  the 
charges.13  The  quantity  of  our  tobacco  in  Europe 
at  the  close  of  the  last  year  was  75,000  hhds.  being 
10,000  more  than  one  year’s  consumption.14  In 
Great  Britain  there  were  about  31,000  hhds.  al¬ 
though  the  annual  consumption  is  only  14,000. 
The  stock  in  Amsterdam  was  14,186  hhds.  whereas 

13  Since  this  address  was  delivered,  some  important  facts 
have  come  to  light,  on  the  subject  of  the  flour  trade  of 
this  country.  On  the  31st  of  August,  there  were  64,500 
barrels  of  American  flour  in  bond  in  Liverpool,  the  price 
of  which  was  20  to  2 2s.  equal  to  $4.45  a  $4.89.  Deduct¬ 
ing  the  expense  of  freight,  commission,  cartage,  insurance, 
interest,  kc.  kc.  these  prices  would  net  from  $3.87£  to 
$4.  This  flour  probably  cost  in  the  United  States  at  least 
$  5  to  $  5.75.  Here  is  a  loss  of  about  20  to  28  per  cent. 
Further,  Rathbone,  Brothers  k  Co.  in  their  price  current 
of  the  above  date,  state  that  “ Baltic  flour  now  rates  higher 
“  than  American 

14  «  Tobacco  is  very  unsaleable,  and  lower  than  we  have 
“  ever  before  known  it.  The  exports  from  the  JJnited  States 
*s  have  so  overwhelmed  every  market  in  Europe ,  that  there  is 
£<  absolutely  no  outlet  for  exportation  from  this  country ,  and 

no  prospect  of  the  stock  on  hand  being  consumed  in  it.  We 
t£  have  upwards  of  31,000  hogsheads  in  Britain  and  Ireland , 
“  whilst  the  consumption  does  not  exceed  14,000  hogsheads  / 
“The  stock  on  the  continent  is  estimated  at  44,000,  mak- 
“  ing  a  total  stock  in  Europe  of  75,000  hogsheads,  being 


32  Address  delivered  before  the 

the  last  year’s  consumption  was  only  10,353.  The 
stock  of  United  States  cotton  on  hands  in  London. 
Liverpool,  and  Glasgow  was  199,745  bales,  where¬ 
as  the  consumption  of  last  year,  was  only  331,800 
—thus  there  was  on  hands  nearly  eight  months 
consumption.  It  is  not  therefore  wonderful,  that 
the  prices  of  those  staples  are  so  perniciously  re¬ 
duced,  the  production  so  constantly  keeping  ahead 
of  the  consumption.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that 
though  the  annual  consumption  of  our  tobacco  in 
Europe  is  only  about  65,000  hhds.  our  export  last 
year  was  no  less  than  99,009 !  How  immensely 
different  our  policy  from  that  of  the  Dutch  in  “  olden 
time  !”  Whenever  the  crop  of  spices  was  too  abun¬ 
dant  for  the  demand,  they  destroyed  the  surplus,  to 
prevent  the  reduction  of  prices.15  Whereas  the 
uniform  tendency  of  our  policy  is  to  increase  pro¬ 
duction,  without  any  chance  of  increasing  consump¬ 
tion. 

This  important  subject  cannot  be  too  minutely 
investigated,  as  a  correct  view  of  it  ought  to  have  a 
powerful  bearing  on  the  welfare  and  happiness  of 

“  10,000  more  than  one  year’s  consumption!  Under  such 
<£  circumstances,  immediate  improvement  in  this  article 
“  would  appear  impossible.”  Cur-wen  &  JIagerty ,  Liver¬ 
pool,  Lee.  31,  1823. 

“  Tobacco  is  uncommonly  fiat  and  heavy ,  and  the  few  sales 
“  effected  are  at  very  low  rates,  even  under  my  quotations ,  when 
“  pressed  on  the  market” — Daniel  Buchanan,  Liverpool, 
14th  February,  1824. 

15  “  I  remember  one  of  their  seamen  newly  landed  out 
“  of  their  East  Indy  Fleet  in  the  year  69,  upon  discourse 
“  in  a  boat  between  Delf  and  Leyden,  said  he  had  seen 
“  before  he  came  away,  three  heaps  of  nutmegs  burnt  at 
“  a  time,  each  of  which  was  more  than  a  small  church 
“  could  hold,  which  he  pointed  at  in  a  village  that  was  in 
“  sight.” — Sir  Win.  Temple’s  observations  on  the  Provinces 
of  the  Netherlands,  page  219. 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  S3 

this  nation.  I  will  therefore  submit  a  comparison 
of  the  relative  situation  of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  as  regards  population  and  domestic 
exports  at  two  different  periods. 


DOMESTIC  EXPORTS. 


British. 

Amen  can. 

1796. 

£  19,102,220  =  $  85,954,990 

$  4,0,7&l,097 

1822. 

£  43,558,490  =  $  196,013,925 
POPULATION. 

$  48,492,658 

British. 

American . 

1796. 

11,000,000  - 

4,750,000 

1822. 

14,000,000  - 

EXPORTS  PER  HEAD. 

-  10,500,000 

British. 

American . 

1796. 

$7.75 

$8.58 

1822. 

14  - 

4.60 

It  is  impossible  to  avoid  being  struck  with  this 
appalling  view  of  our  affairs,  which  must  make  the 
heart  ache  of  every  man  possessed  of  true  Ameri¬ 
can  feeling.  Our  domestic  exports  in  1796  were  10 
per  cent,  more  per  head  than  those  of  Great  Bri¬ 
tain.  They  are  now  66  per  cent,  less  !  The  amount 
of  exports,  (notwithstanding  the  wonderful  augmen¬ 
tation  in  the  article  of  cotton,)  has  not  increased 
20  per  cent,  although  our  population  has  increased 
120  per  cent. !  Our  system  is  an  incubus,  which, 
squatting  over  the  bounties  and  blessings  of  nature, 
paralizes  and  smothers  the  national  energies.  While 
Great  Britain,  after  an  exhausting  warfare,  of  un¬ 
exampled  expenditure,  and  labouring  under  im¬ 
mense  disadvantages,  has  nearly  doubled  her  ex¬ 
ports  per  head,  we  have  decreased  ours,  to  little 
more  than  one-half  per  head  of  what  they  were  in 
1796 !  And  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  diminution 
is  as  well  in  the  quantity  as  in  the  market  value  ! 

Having  compared  the  domestic  exports  and  popu- 


34  Address  delivered  before  the 

lation  of  the  United  States  with  those  of  Great 
Britain,  I  shall  add  a  comparison  with  those  of 
Ireland,  one  of  the  most  ill-governed  and  wretched 
countries  in  Europe.  In  the  year  ending  Jan.  5, 
1823,  with  a  population  of  7,000,000,  her  domestic 
exports  were  no  less  than  the  value  of  ^6,771,796 
Irish,  equal  to  $  27,128,900,  being  more  than  the 
domestic  exports,  during  last  year,  of  Maine,  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Isl¬ 
and,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Dela¬ 
ware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Ten¬ 
nessee,  and  all  those  parts  of  the  other  states  not  en¬ 
gaged  in  the  culture  of  cotton,  containing  at  least 
9,850,000  people,  wholly  free  from  tithes,  and 
almost  from  taxes  and  rents,  with  land  in  fee  sim¬ 
ple  in  many  places  for  less  than  the  tithes  in  Ireland ! 
Her  exports  were  at  the  rate  of  $3.87  per  head — 
while  those  of  the  states  specified  were,  as  we  have 
seen,  only  $2.71!  Her  export  of  linen,  almost 
wholly  the  production  of  Ulster,  containing  only 
about  2,000,000  of  souls,  was  $11,900,050,  being 
very  nearly  half  that  of  the  states  above  specified, 
and  more  than  a  fourth  part  of  our  total  exports. 

Again.  In  1818,  the  manufacture  of  cottons  in 
the  city  and  neighbourhood  of  Glasgow,  with  a  po¬ 
pulation  of  about  200,000  inhabitants,  was  £  5,200,- 
000,  equal  to  $  23,000,000,  one-half  of  which  was 
exported.16  Thus  the  exports  of  200,000  people  in 

16  “  Although  no  positive  estimate  can  be  made,  of  the 
“  amount  of  the  cotton  manufacture  in  Glasgow,  it  lias 
“  been  computed  by  those  who  are  well  qualified  to  judge, 
“  that  during  the  year  1818,  there  were  105,000,000  yards 
“  of  cotton  cloth  manufactured  in  Glasgow  and  neighbour- 
“  hood,  the  value  of  which  could  not  be  less  than  £  5,- 
u  200,000,  and  that  nearly  one-half  of  these  goods  were 
“  exported.  Connected  with  the  city,  there  are  16  works 

for  weaving  by  power,  which  contain  2,380  looms,  pro- 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  35 

Scotland,  of  the  single  article  of  cotton  goods,  ex¬ 
clusive  of  all  the  rest  of  their  productions,  were 
above  two-fifths  of  those  of  9,850,000  people  in  the 
United  States  !  And  there  is  not  the  least  doubt 
but  they  have  greatly  increased  since  the  year  1818. 

IV.  State  of  the  Nation. 

We  have  been  stunned  with  reiterated  assertions 
of  the  very  extraordinary  and  unparalleled  prospe¬ 
rity  of  this  country ;  and,  in  spite  of  a  host  of  strong 
opposing  facts,  there  are  thousands  of  our  citizens 
who  implicitly  believe  those  assertions  to  be  lite¬ 
rally  true.17  Nothing  is  more  pernicious  to  a  pa¬ 
tient,  whether  a  nation  or  an  individual,  when  la¬ 
bouring  under  serious  disorders,  than  a  belief  of  the 
existence  of  robust  health — and  the  more  morbid 
the  state,  the  greater  the  danger  of  the  error.  This 
point,  therefore,  demands  a  severe  scrutiny,  which, 
although  an  ungracious  office,  I  venture  to  under- 

“ducing  8,200  pieces  of  cloth  weekly;  and  it  appears 
“  from  a  late  investigation,  that  there  are  about  32,000 
<f  hand-looms.” — -Rise  and  Progress  of  the  City  of  Glasgow , 
page  95. 

17  “  Mr.  Webster  was  so  happy,  as  entirely  to  differ  with 
“the  speaker  in  the  picture  of  intense  distress  which  he 
“  had  drawn.  Where  was  this  extensive  misery  ?  who  has 
“  heard  the  groans  of  this  intense  distress  ?  He  believed  that 
“  THE  COUNTRY  WAS  NEVER  IN  A  HIGHER  STATE 
“  OF  SOLID  PROSPERITY.  Was  there  ever  a  time  when 
<(  the  fruits  of  the  earth  were  cultivated  with  more  success? 
“  There  is  no  famine  in  the  land — no  excessive  taxation .  In 
“  all  the  great  essentials  of  human  life ,  in  the  quality  and 
“  quantity  of  subsistence ,  in  all  the  quantity  and  quality  of 
“ clothing ,  there  is  abundance ,  and  LABOUR  IS  SURE 
“  OF  ITS  REWARD.  How  then  can  it  be  a  country  of 
“  intense  distress  ?  The  picture  is  the  result  of  a  highly 
“  charged  imagination.” —Mr  Webster’s  speech  as  origi¬ 
nally  reported. 


36  Address  delivered  before  the 

take,  because  a  serious  conviction  of  disorder  is  a 
necessary  preliminary  to  the  application  of  any  re¬ 
medies. 

I  do  not  pretend  that  distress  or  suffering  is  uni¬ 
versal.  In  no  country,  even  in  Turkey,  Poland,  or 
Ireland,  is  that  the  case.  And  with  the  immense 
advantages  the  United  States  enjoy,  the  worst  form 
of  government  ever  devised,  and  the  most  grinding 
administration,  could  not  prevent  large  portions  of 
our  citizens  from  being  prosperous.  All  I  contend 
for  is,  that  entire  sections  of  the  country,  and  en¬ 
tire  classes  of  our  citizens,  suffer  intense  distress — 
distress  which,  under  our  very  favourable  circum¬ 
stances,  nothing  but  an  unwise  policy  could  inflict. 

I  shall  call  in  as  evidences,  gentlemen  hostile  to 
the  policy  I  advocate,  to  whom,  of  course,  its  ene¬ 
mies  cannot  object — 

Mr.  Tatnal,  in  his  never-to-be-forgotten  tirade 
against  the  tariff,  stated  that  “ poverty  was  wearing 
“  Georgia  to  the  bone,” 

Mr.  Garnet,  in  drawing  a  picture  of  the  situa¬ 
tion  of  Virginia,  stated  that  “  its  population  is 
“  driven  into  distant  lands ,  and  reduced  to  beggary 
66  — and  that  desolation  is  spread  over  the  country,” 

Mr.  Macon  in  congress  stated  the  distress  of 
North  Carolina,  as  not  unlike  that  of  Virginia. 

A  memorial  of  the  citizens  of  Charleston,  lately 
presented  to  congress,  gives  a  most  melancholy 
picture  of  the  situation  of  South  Carolina — 

fS  The  effects  produced”  [by  the  reduction  of  the  price 
of  cotton,]  “  are  deplorable  in  the  extreme.  Property  of  all 
“  kinds  is  depreciated  beyond  example.  A  feeling  of  gloomy 
“  despondence  is  beginning  to  prevail  every  -where  in  the  lo-wer 
(t  country.  ESTATES  ARE  SACRIFICED  TO  FAY 
“THE  LAST  INSTALMENTS  ON  THE  BONDS 
“GIVEN  FOR  THE  PURCHASE  MONEY.  Nobody 
“  seems  disposed  to  buy ,  what  every  body  is  anxious  to  sell,  at 
“  any  price.” 


3  7 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society. 

There  is  no  part  of  the  world  which  enjoys 
greater  natural  advantages  than  Louisiana.  Yet  she 
undergoes  her  full  portion  of  the  distress  and  suffering 
inflicted  on  her  sister  states,  by  our  mistaken  po¬ 
licy.  According  to  the  declaration  in  congress  of 
J.  S.  Johnson,  Esq.  one  of  her  representatives,  she 
is  “  struggling  with  her  debts — loss  of  crops—fall 
66  of  prices — and  depreciation  of  properly.”  To  re¬ 
lieve  her  citizens  from  their  intense  distresses,  she 
has  recently  incorporated  a  bank*  with  a  capital  of 
§  4,000,000.  It  has  five  branches,  each  with  a  ca¬ 
pital  of  55  200,000.  A  large  portion  of  the  loans  are 
intended  for  the  accommodation  of  planters  as  well 
as  merchants. 

It  may  be  said,  that  “  the  loss  of  crops,”  has  no 
connexion  with  the  policy  of  our  government.  This 
I  admit.  But  “the  loss  of  crops”  would  have  raised 
instead  “  of  reducing  prices,”  but  for  the  excess  of 
production  over  demand,  which  is  the  obvious  con¬ 
sequence  of  that  policy. 

I  might  here  close  the  account  as  regards  the 
southern  section  of  the  union.  These  statements 
settle  the  question  beyond  cavil.  But  I  cannot  re¬ 
frain  from  citing  one  more  unimpeachable  autho¬ 
rity  respecting  the  state  of  that  portion  of  the  na¬ 
tion. 

Mr.  Carter,  one  of  the  representatives  of  the 
state  of  South  Carolina,  drew  the  following  heart¬ 
rending  portrait  of  the  situation  of  the  seven  most 
southern  states: — 

“  The  prostration  of  their  foreign  markets  has  spread 
“  over  the  face  of  the  south  a  general  pervading  gloom .  In  all 
“  that  region  which  stretches  itself  from  the  shores  of  the  Po- 
“  tomac  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico ,  where  all  the  arts  of  civilized 
“  life  once  triumphed ,  THE  ARM  OF  INDUSTRY  IS  NOW 
<c  PARALIZED.  LARGE  AND  AMPLE  ESTATES, 
“  ONCE  THE  SEATS  OF  OPULENCE,  WHICH  SUP- 
"  PORTED  THEIR  PROPRIETORS  IN  AFFLUENCE 

D 


38  Jlddress  delivered  before  the 

“AND  COMFORT,  ARE  NOW  THROWN  OUT  TO 
“  WASTE  AND  DECAY.” 

Here  we  are  on  the  horns  of  a  dilemma.  Either 
those  gentlemen,  whose  names  are  given,  have  been 
guilty,  in  the  face  of  the  world,  of  stating  down¬ 
right  falsehoods  to  deceive  congress  and  the  entire 
nation — which  cannot  for  a  moment  be  supposed — 
or  else  the  assertions  of  the  great  prosperity  of  the 
country  are  utterly  destitute  of  foundation.  The 
states  embraced  in  Mr.  Carter’s  declaration,  with 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  both  in  neafly  the  same 
situation,  in  1820  embraced  4,330,640  souls,  being 
above  two-fifths  of  the  entire  population  of  the  na¬ 
tion.  And  I  presume  it  would  not  be  more  prepos¬ 
terous  to  assert  that  an  individual,  who  laboured 
under  a  pulmonary  consumption,  a  cancer  in  his 
breast,  or  a  desperate  liver  complaint,  was  in  a  high 
state  of  health,  than  that  a  nation  enjoyed  a  state 
of  “  solid  prosperity,”  of  which  one-third  was 
in  the  deplorable  condition  depicted  by  Mr.  Carter, 
even  if  no  distress  or  suffering  existed  elsewhere, 
which  is  very  far  indeed  from  being  the  case,  as  I 
am  prepared  to  prove. 

There  are  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  about  7000 
females,  many  of  them  widows  and  orphans  of 
persons  formerly  in  a  high  degree  of  prosperity, 
who  are  obliged  to  work  as  seamstresses  and  taylor- 
esses,  of  whom  the  most  skilful,  unencumbered  w  ith 
children,  cannot  earn  more  than  a  quarter  dollar 
per  day,  and  those  with  children,  or  unskilful,  not 
more  than  from  75  cents  to  one  dollar  per  week.18 

18  The  following  queries  were  sent  to  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Benjamin  Allen,  one  of  the  most  active  members  of  the 
Provident  Society  in  Philadelphia,  in  order  to  ascertain 
the  number  and  state  of  the  persons  employed  by  them. 
His  answers  are  annexed. 

1.  How  many  persons  were  employed  last  w  inter  by 


39 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society . 

There  are  in  the  same  city  about  4000  paupers, 
1500  in  the  alms-house,  and  2500  supported  at  their 
dwellings,  of  whom  one-*1  hd  are  able  and  willing 
to  work,  but  cannot  procure  employment.  In  the 
city  of  New  York,  there  are,  according  to  a  report 
recently  laid  before  the  legislature,  9,556  paupers, 
of  whom  one-sixth  are  permanent.  It  is  more  than 
probable  that  above  one-third  of  the  whole,  particu¬ 
larly  of  the  females,  are  able  and  willing  to  work, 
if  they  could  procure  employment.  In  the  state, 
.there  are,  22,111  paupers,  of  whom  6,896  are  per¬ 
manent. 

For  the  suffering  state  of  navigation  and  com¬ 
merce,  I  refer  to  the  speech  of  Mr.  Webster,  as 
originally  reported19 — to  the  statement  in  the  Me- 

tlie  society?  Answer.  About  1250  women,  and  150 
children. 

2.  What  wages  did  they  earn  per  week  generally  ? 
Answer.  From  75  cents  to  a  dollar. 

3.  Were  there  many  of  them  widows  and  orphans  of 
persons  who  had  seen  prosperous  times  ?  Answer.  Num¬ 
bers. 

A  similar  application  to  the  Female  Hospitable  Society, 
last  autumn,  produced  the  melancholy  information,  that 
there  were  1500  females  out  of  employment,  and  desir¬ 
ous  to  obtain  work — and  that  the  society  employed  about 
500  in  the  course  of  the  year. 

19  “  The  navigation  of  the  country  is  struggling  for  its  breath . 
"  It  is  hanging  by  a  hair.  And  if  gentlemen  wish  to  add 
“  burdens  to  the  falling,  to  press  down  the  oppressed,  the 
“  way  is  open  to  them.” 

“  He  again  depicted  the  present  distress  of  the  navi- 
“  gating  interest.  Our  rivers  are  crowded  with  ships  seeking 
“ for  cargoes,  and ,  when  freights  are  obtained ,  THEY 
“  SCARCELY  PAY  THE  LEAST  POSSIBLE  EXPENSE 
“OF  NAVIGATION.  It  is  impossible  that  this  interest 
“  can  suffer  any  further  depression.” — Mr.  Webster's 
Speech  as  originally  reported. 


40 


Address  delivered  before  the 

niorial  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Philadel¬ 
phia20 — and  to  the  Memorial  of  the  Directors  of 
the  Philadelphia  Bank.21 

Manufactures,  except  those  of  coarse  yarns  and 
cotton,  are  greatly  depressed.  One-half  of  the  esta¬ 
blishments  for  the  manufacture  of  woollen  goods, 
throughout  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  Penn¬ 
sylvania  are  closed — and  many  of  the  proprietors 
ruined.22 

20  (t  How  little  manufactures  partake  of  the  evils  wider 
“  which  the  commerce  and  agriculture  of  the  country  now 
“  suffer,  need  not  be  remarked. 

“  Commerce  has  confessedly  suffered  more  than  any  other 
“  branch  of  industry ,  by4he  events  of  recent  years.  It  has 
“  borne  its  disasters  patiently.  IT  IS  NOW  JUST 

CREEPIN  G  INTO  LIFE.”— Memorial  of  the  Philadel¬ 
phia  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

21  “  The  mercantile  embarrassments  of  the  country  for  some 
“  years  past,  have  been  so  seriously  felt  by  persons  of  all  ranks 
“in  society ,  and  THE  MISERIES  OF  POVERTY  HAVE 
“INVADED  THE  FIRE-SIDES  OF  SO  MANY  OF 
«  OUR  RESPECTABLE  FELLOW  CITIZENS,  that  it 
“could  scarcely  be  expected  that  an  institution  whose 
“  prosperity  is  dependent  upon  the  punctuality  of  its  cus- 
“  tomers,  should  be  exempt  from  its  portion  of  the  calami- 
“  ties,  which  have  been  so  sensibly  felt  by  the  whole  com- 
“  munity.” — Extract  from  a  % Memorial  presented  by  the  Di¬ 
rectors  of  the  Philadelphia  Bank ,  to  the  legislature  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania ,  dated  Feb.  20,  1823. 

22  A  memorial  of  the  Woollen  Manufacturers  of  Provi¬ 
dence,  R.  I.  presented  to  congress  at  its  last  session, 
stated — 

“  That  large  sums  have  been  invested  in  mills  and  ma¬ 
chinery  for  manufacturing  wool  in  the  State  of  Rhode 
“  Island  and  its  vicinity,  and  numerous  workmen  have 
“  derived  employment  from  their  operation.  That  during 
“  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain,  these  manufactories 
“were  principally  established,  when  they  afforded,  even 
“in  their  infancy,  great  relief  to  the  wants  of  the  coun- 
“trv — they  have  since,  without  protection,  been  gradu¬ 
ally  increasing,  until  EXCESSIVE  IMPORTATIONS 


41 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society. 

For  the  situation  of  a  large  portion  of  the  farm¬ 
ing  interest,  I  refer  to  the  following  statement,  ex¬ 
tracted  from  a  memorial  of  the  farmers  of  Rensse¬ 
laer  County,  N.  Y. 

“  There  is  at  this  time,  and  there  has  been  for  several 
“years,  an  over-supply  of  the  products  of  agriculture — they 
“  have  glutted  the  makets  of  the  world.  The  want  of  a  fo - 
“  reign  market  has  not  been  supplied  at  home  ;  for  our  own 
“producers  have  increased  in  afar  greater  ratio  than  our 
“  consumers,  and  the  consequences  have  been,  in  tills 
“  part  of  the  country,  A  UNIV  ERSAL  DEPRESSION  OF 
“PRICES,  DEPRECIATION  OF  THE  VALUE  OF 
“LAND,  A  SLUGGISH  CIRCULATION,  GENERAL 
“  EMBARRASSMENT, FREQUENT  SHERIFFS’  SALES 
“AND  RUIN.” 

Mr.  Clay  has  stated  the  melancholy  and  indubit¬ 
able  fact,  that “  farmers  have  successive  unthrashed 
ic  crops  of  grain ,  perishing  in  their  hams  for  want 
“  of  a  market” 

Mr.  Carter,  of  South  Carolina,  drew  an  appal¬ 
ling  picture  of  the  situation  of  the  farming  interest 
in  the  middle  states,  with  which  1  shall  close  these 
melancholy  views  : — 

“  The  farmer  of  the  grain-growing  states  will  tell  you, 
“  that  he  has  large  annual  surpluses  of  grain ,  which  he  is 
“  doomed  year  after  year  to  see  rot  and  perish  on  his  hands  ; 


“OF  FOREIGN  MANUFACTURED  WOOLLENS 
“HAVE  FINALLY  DISCOURAGED  FURTHER  IN- 
“  VESTMENT  OF  CAPITAL.  From  this  cause  it  is 
.“estimated  that  THE  OPERATION  OF  MORE  TUAN 
“ONE  HALF  OF  THESE  MILLS  IS  AT  PRESENT 
“SUSPENDED!  In  some  instances  the  machinery  for 
“  wool  lias  been  laid  aside,  and  other  machinery  emplo}’ed 
“  in  place  of  it.  Those,  who,  in  the  hope  of  some  favour¬ 
able  change,  s' ill  continue  the  manufacture  of  wool, 
“HAVE  GLOOMY  PROSPECTS  BEFORE  THEM!” 

A  memorial  to  the  same  effect,  was  presented  by  the 
same  class  in  Boston.  The  situation  of  the  woollen  ma¬ 
nufacturers  throughout  Pennsylvania,  is  exactly  similar  to 
that  of  those  in  Rhode  Island. 

D  2 


42 


Address  delivered  before  the 

“that  it  is  to  no  purpose  that  he  applies  himself  to  the 
“  diligent  cultivation  of  a  fruitful  soil ;  that  each  return  of 
“  autumn  finds  his  barns  filled,  to  overflowing,  with  abun- 
“  dance,  but  that  it  is  all  useless,  nay,  worse  than  useless 
“to  him  :  for  his  well-stored  barns  stand  continually  be- 
“  fore  his  eyes,  as  tormenting  memorials  of  his  labours  frits - 
“  trated ,  and  the  bounty  of  his  fields  most  cruelly  wasted,  lie 
“may  represent  his  labours  as  equalling,  in  their  fertility 
“  and  vexatious  disappointment,  the  fabled  toils  of  Svsi- 
“  phus  himself.  THE  DEPLORABLE  ACCURACY  OF 
“  SUCH  A  PICTURE  WILL  NOT  BE  DISPUTED.” 

Who  can  reflect  on  such  a  horrible  state  of  affairs 
in  a  country  so  franscendently  blest  as  this  is, 
without  sighing  over  the  impolicy  of  our  national 
councils — which,  from  a  blind  and  illiberal  jealousy 
of  the  manufacturers  and  mechanics,  comprising 
one-seventh  part  of  our  entire  population,  and  one- 
fourth  part  of  the  population  of  the  states  from 
Maine  to  Maryland  inclusive,  withers  and  blights 
and  blasts  the  choicest  bounties  of  nature  !  It  may 
be  fairly  questioned,  whether  there  ever  was  a  na¬ 
tion,  possessed  of  half  the  advantages  we  enjoy, 
which,  without  war,  famine,  or  pestilence,  exhibited 
such  scenes  as  are  here  depicted  by  Mr.  Tatnal, 
Mr.  Garnet  and  Mr.  Carter.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that 
until  a  radical  change  takes  place  in  the  afiairs  of 
the  country,  we  shall  never  again  be  mocked  with 
the  very  erroneous  statements  of  national  prosperi¬ 
ty,  which,  in  the  broad,  unqualified  sense  assumed 
by  our  writers  and  orators,  are  mere  66  waking 
66  dreams”  calculated,  by  throwing  a  veil  over  the 
disordered  state  of  our  affairs,  to  prevent  any  at¬ 
tempt  at  relief. 

Few  of  our  statesmen  take  an  enlarged  and  com¬ 
prehensive  view  of  the  state  of  the  country.  They 
cast  their  eyes  on  particular  spots,  from  which  they 
undertake  to  infer  the  situation  of  the  whole.  One 
sees  a  high  degree  of  prosperity  in  New  York — an- 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  .  43 

other  in  Boston — and  a  third  in  Rhode  Island — and 
hence  they  pronounce  with  confidence  on  the  whole 
of  the  U.  States.  A  member  of  the  senate  deeply  in¬ 
terested  in  the  Waltham  Factory,  and  knowingthat 
it  has  divided  25  per  cent,  per  annum,  hence  assert¬ 
ed  that  the  manufacturers  were  the  most  thriving 
“  and  prosperous  part  of  the  community.55  Where¬ 
as,  in  his  own  neighbourhood,  bankruptcy  had  swal¬ 
lowed  up  a  large  portion  of  the  woollen  manufac¬ 
turers,  and  the  remainder  were  in  the  most  depress¬ 
ed  state.  It  is  needless  to  comment  on  the  radical 
errors  of  such  a  mode  of  reasoning,  and  the  ruinous 
consequences  that  must  arise  from  predicating  there¬ 
on  a  scheme  of  policy  for  a  great  and  rising  nation. 

Among  the  melancholy  facts  with  which  our  an¬ 
nals  abound,  proving  the  paralizing  and  destructive 
tendency  of  our  policy,  there  is  none  speaks  in 
plainer  ianguage,  than  the  records  of  the  land  office. 
Immense  sales  had  been  made  of  the  western  lands 
on  credit.  The  balance  due  on  the  30th  of  March, 
1820,  was  no  less  than  g  21,908,099,  above  one- 
fifth  part  of  the  national  debt.  Such  were  the  im¬ 
poverishment  and  distress  of  the  western  country, 
that  the  purchasers  were  wholly  unable  to  pay  the 
instalments,  as  they  became  due.  It  would  have 
been  dangerous,  in  the  suffering  state  of  that  coun¬ 
try,  to  have  attempted  to  enforce  payment.  To  re¬ 
lieve  the  delinquents,  an'  act  was  passed,  bearing 
the  above  date,  which  repealed  that  clause  of  the 
original  act,  by  which  a  failure  of  the  payment  of 
any  instalment,  as  it  became  due,  incurred  a  for¬ 
feiture  of  the  previous  instalments.  This  act  was 
to  be  in  force  for  one  year.  At  the  expiration  of 
this  period,  the  purchasers  laboured  under  equal 
difficulty.  There  being  no  prospect  of  a  change  in 
the  affairs  of  the  western  world,  an  act  was  passed, 
March  2,  1821,  authorizing  the  delinquent  pur- 


44 


Address  delivered  before  the 

chasers  to  surrender  such  portions  of  the  land  as 
they  might  judge  proper — relinquishing  all  claim  to 
the  interest  that  had  accrued — and  reducing  the 
price  of  public  lands  in  future,  from  two  dollars  on 
credit,  to  one  dollar  twenty-five  cents  cash.  For 
those  who  did  not  chose  to  relinquish  their  lands, 
the  periods  of  payment  were  prolonged  to  four,  six, 
and  eight  years.  The  sum,  of  which  the  payment 
is  thus  postponed  till  1829,  is  no  less  than  g  6,257,- 
480!  There  were  2,132,881  acres  relinquished, 
on'  which  was  due,  g  7,981,940,  being  above 
eighteen  months  interest  on  the  national  debt!  It 
is  easy  to  calculate  the  extent  of  the  injury  sustain¬ 
ed  by  the  government  by  these  operations,  the  ob¬ 
vious  result  of  our  system.  The  loss  by  the  reduc¬ 
tion  of  the  price  of  the  lands  alone,  is  far  more  than 
the  whole  of  our  national  debt.  And  this  reduction 
has  proportionably  diminished  the  value  of  all  the 
lands  in  the  western  country. 

Y.  Pernicious  operation  of  our  present  policy  upon 
the  agricultural  interest . 

Excessive  importations  of  manufactures,  sold  at 
auction  at  reduced  prices,  whereby  our  markets  are 
glutted,  and  our  citizens  deprived  of  sale  for  their 
productions,  or  obliged  to  sell  them  at  or  below 
cost,  are  circumstances  of  frequent  occurrence,  and 
have  been  from  the  commencement  of  our  govern¬ 
ment.  That  in  consequence  great  numbers  of  our 
manufacturers  have  been  bankrupted,  and  have 
therefore  betaken  themselves  to  farming,  is  too  well 
known  to  require  detail. 

This  operates  as  a  two-edged  sword  on  agricul¬ 
ture,  which  is  thereby  not  only  deprived  of  so 
many  customers,  for  food,  drink,  and  raw  materials 
—but  finds  those  customers  converted  into  rivals, 
who  increase  the  quantity  of  produce,  diminish  the 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  45 

number  of  purchasers,  and  of  course  lower  the 
prices. 

A  favourite  doctrine  with  our  statesmen  for 
thirty -five  years,  has  been  to  buy  abroad  what  could 
be  had  cheaper  than  at  home,  regardless  of  the  ruin 
thus  entailed  on  the  manufacturers.  Whenever  this 
class  made  application  to  congress  for  relief,  they 
were  told  to  “ go  back”  meaning  to  the  western 
wilds.  This  was  a  panacea  for  all  their  evils. 

In  consequence  of  this  system,  thus  forcing  our 
citizens  to  abandon  their  regular  avocations,  and  de¬ 
vote  themselves  to  the  culture  of  the  soil,  there  is  pro¬ 
bably  a  greater  proportion  of  our  citizens  agricultur¬ 
ists  than  of  any  other  nation  in  the  civilized  world. 
This  is  the  root  of  all  the  evils  of  the  country ,  as  it 
destroys  the  proper  distribution  of  labour ,  the  grand 
secret  to  promote  national  prosperity .  According 
to  the  late  census,  83  per  cent,  of  our  population 
is  engaged  in  agriculture.  Whereas  in  Great  Bri¬ 
tain  there  are  but  33.  About  fifty  years  since,  the 
proportion  in  that  country  was  50  per  cent. 

Were  all  the  markets  in  the  world  open  to  our 
produce,  as  ours  are  to  the  manufactures  of  all  the 
world,  we  should  not  feel  the  injury  of  this  system 
very  seriously — although  even  in  that  case  we 
should  carry  on  a  disadvantageous  commerce ;  as 
we  should  give  the  labour  of  5,  6,  7,  and  in  some 
instances  10  agriculturists  for  that  of  2  or  3  men 
or  women,  and  in  some  cases  boys  or  girls,  as  will 
appear  in  the  sequel.  But  under  the  limitations,  re¬ 
strictions  and  exclusions,  to  wdiich  some  of  our  chief 
staples  are  at  present  subjected,  the  system  is  de¬ 
structive  to  individual  prosperity  and  happiness, 
and  to  national  44  wealth,  power,  and  resources.” 

Although  the  pernicious  effect  on  agriculture,  of 
thus  diminishing  the  number  of  its  customers  and 
increasing  that  of  its  rivals,  is  too  plain  and  self-evi- 


46  Address  delivered  before  tike 

dent,  to  require  to  be  bolstered  up  by  any  gre^ 
names,  yet  it  may  not  be  improper  to  support  it  by 
an  authority  to  which  neither  Mr.  Barbour,  Mr. 
Garnet,  Mr.  Webster,  nor  Mr.  Cambreleng  can  ob¬ 
ject — an  authority  on  which  our  leading  politicians 
place  the  most  implicit  reliance.  I  mean  Adam 
Smith,  who  pronounces  as  strong  a  sentence  of  con¬ 
demnation  on  our  policy  as  Dr.  Franklin  or  Alex¬ 
ander  Hamilton 

“  Whatever  tends  to  diminish  in  any  country  the  number  of 
* ‘  artificers  and  manufacturers ,  TENDS  TO  DIMINISH 
“  THE  HOME  MARKET,  THE  MOST  INPORT  ANT  OF 
“  ALL  MARKETS  FOR  THE  RUDE  PRODUCE  OF 
THE  LAND  ;  and  thereby  still  further  to  discourage  agri - 
culture .” 

This  maxim,  which,  for  this  country,  is  worth  all 
the  rest  of  the  doctor’s  work — but  which,  by  the 
way,  is  diametrically  opposed  to  nearly  all  its  other 
leading  maxims,  is  not  adduced  here  because  it  is 
the  dictum  of  Adam  Smith — nor  to  turn  the  tables 
on  the  opposers  of  the  doctrines  herein  advocated, 
who,  I  repeat,  regard  that  writer  as  oracular — but 
because  it  is  founded  in  reason  and  common  sense, 
and  consonant  with  the  universal  practice  of  man¬ 
kind,  except  that  of  the  agriculturists  of  the  United 
States,  who  alone  pursue  a  system  calculated  to 
diminish  the  number  of  their  customers.  Among 
all  other  classes  and  descriptions  of  men,  an  in¬ 
crease  of  the  number  of  rivals  and  a  decrease  of 
supporters,  are  dreaded  as  severe  evils.  A  lawyer, 
a  doctor,  a  merchant,  ora  tradesman,  who  pursued 
a  system  calculated  to  produce  this  effect,  would 
be  regarded  as  insane.  Why  should  a  procedure, 
partaking  in  this  case,  of  folly  and  madness,  be 
wisdom  as  applied  to  the  great  class  of  agricultu¬ 
rists  ? 

It  is  difficult,  indeed  impossible,  to  ascertain  the 
number  of  persons  originally  brought  up  to  the  va- 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  4 7 

rious  branches  of  manufactures  and  the  mechanic 
arts,  who  have  been  reluctantly  driven  to  the  culti¬ 
vation  of  the  soil,  by  the  want  of  a  market  for  their 
productions.  But  as  the  system  has  been  steadily 
in  operation  for  about  thirty-live  years,  it  cannot 
be  extravagant  to  assume  that  there  are  70,000 
families,  manufacturers,  natives  and  immigrants, 
thus  circumstanced,  averaging  three  to  each,  or 
above  200,000  persons. 

That  this  calculation  is  not  materially  wrong, 
will  satisfactorily  appear  from  the  fact,  that  in  the 
single  city  of  Philadelphia,  it  was  ascertained  in 
1 819,  that  in  thirty,  out  of  fifty-six  branches  of  manu¬ 
factures,  7728  work-people  had  been  deprived  of 
employment  from  the  year  1816.  In  the  remain¬ 
ing  twenty-six,  there  were  probably  as  many — but 
say  only  half — it  would  amount  in  that  short  space 
of  time,  and  in  one  city,  to  above  11,000,  many  of 
them  with  large  families.  At  the  same  period, 
thousands  were  thrown  out  of  employment  in  Rhode 
Island,  and  great  numbers  in  almost  every  part  of 
the  middle  and  eastern  states.  Of  these  a  very 
large  portion  devoted  themselves  to  field  labour,  as 
affording  the  only  opening  for  their  industry. 

It  will  shed  some  light  on  the  effect  produced  by 
thus  converting  manufacturers  into  farmers,  to  state 
that  which  would  be  produced  by  the  contrary 
operation,  i.  e.  recalling  back  to  manufactures  some 
of  those  who  have  been  driven  from  these  pursuits 
to  agriculture. 

Mr.  Philip  Barbour,  representative  from  the  state 
of  Virginia,  during  the  last  session  of  congress,  sup¬ 
posed  a  case,  on  which  he  predicated  what  he  re¬ 
garded  as  a  triumphant  question- — - 

Let  us  suppose,”  says  he,  “  that  the  encouragement 
“  afforded  by  this  bill,  should,  in  some  two  or  three  years, 
“  transfer  100,000  persons  from  agriculture  to 


48  Address  delivered  before  the 

“  tures.  Here  vve  have  this  number  of  new  customers  to 
“  feed.  What  perceptible  advantage ,  let  me  ask ,  ivill  THIS 
<f  SMALL  NUMBER  afford  to  the  agriculturists  ?” 

That  Mr.  Barbour  must  have  considered  the  ef¬ 
fect  trifling  and  unimportant,  is  obvious.  His  ques¬ 
tion  was  regarded  as  a  sort  of  refutation  of  ali  the 
arguments  deduced  from  the  pernicious  conse¬ 
quences  said  to  result  from  compelling  manufac¬ 
turers  to  become  agriculturists;  and  affords  the 
most  conclusive  evidence,  that  the  possession  of  a 
high  degree  of  forensic  talents,  conceded  to  this 
gentleman,  as  well  by  his  opponents  as  his  sup¬ 
porters,  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  possession 
of  skill  as  a  political  economist,  or  as  a  safe  guide 
in  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  a  rising  state. 

Instead  of  100,000  farmers,  converted  into  ma¬ 
nufacturers,  according  to  the  supposition  of  Mr. 
Barbour,  I  shall  only  assume  25,000,  and  confining 
myself  to  the  culture  of  wheat  and  corn,  investigate 
the  effect  it  would  produce  on  our  agricultural  sur¬ 
pluses. 

By  an  estimate,  carefully  made,  which  I  lately 
published,  it  appears  that  ten  men  employed  in 
field  labour,  can  cultivate  300  acres  of  land,  half  in 
wheat  and  half  in  corn.  At  24  bushels  of  the  latter, 
and  12  of  the  former,  per  acre,  they  produce  1800 
bushels  of  the  one,  and  3600  of  the  other.  Deduct¬ 
ing  for  their  own  consumption,  for  seed  and  for 
horse  feed,  225  bushels  of  wheat,  and  1600  bushels 
of  com,  leaves  a  surplus  of  1575  bushels  of  wheat 
and  2000  bushels  of  corn — 

To  ascertain  the  proceeds  of  the  labours  of  25,000 
persons,  according  to  this  rate,  requires  only  a  sim¬ 
ple  arithmetical  process — 

a  m  £  1575  bush,  wheat  }  on 
As  10::  £  2000  corn  5  :  ~5 

The  wheat  is  equivalent 
flour. 


,000: 


>  3,937, 500  bush,  wheat 
\  5,000,000  corn 


to  787,500  barrels  of 


49 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society . 

The  average  export  of  corn  and  flour  for  the  last 
two  years,  was,  629,066  bushels  of  the  former,  and 
792,288,  barrels  of  the  latter.  Thus  we  see  that  the 
surplus  of  the  labour  of  25,000  men,  (not  100,000, 
as  stated  by  Mr.  Barbour,)  is  nearly  equal  to  the 
average  export  of  our  flour,  and  eight  times  as 
much  as  that  of  our  Indian  corn.  A  little  reflec¬ 
tion  will  satisfy  every  reader  that  the  conversion 
of  25,000,  or  even  15,000  of  those  farmers  into  ma¬ 
nufacturers,  who  have  quitted  manufactures  for  the 
culture  of  the  soil,  would,  by  diminishing  the  sur¬ 
plus  for  exportation,  and  increasing  the  domestic 
market,  material ly  improve  the  condition  of  our 
farmers.  And  by  a  parity  of  reasoning,  it  is  equally 
clear,  that  much  of  their  sufferings  must  have  been 
caused  by  the  contrary  process,  which  has  been  so 
long  in  operation. 

The  distress  to  the  south,  among  the  cotton  and 
tobacco  planters,  may  be  traced  to  this  source.  By 
the  undue  increase  of  the  class  of  farmers,  and  the 
consequent  depression  of  farming,  many  of  the  far¬ 
mers  in  various  parts  of  the  United  States  have 
been  driven  to  tobacco  planting — and,  wherever  the 
climate  is  favourable  for  the  culture  of  cotton,  far¬ 
mers  have  from  year  to  year  engaged  in  it.  There 
is  probably  five  times  as  much  cotton  raised  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  and  North  Carolina  as  there  was  six  or  seven 
years  ago — and  our  system  cannot  fail  to  extend 
the  cultivation.  From  this  state  of  things,  I  repeat, 
arises  the  excess  of  production  over  consumption, 
of  both  those  staples,  and  the  consequent  glut  of 
the  foreign  markets,  and  reduction  of  prices. 


E 


50 


Address  delivered  before  the 

VI.  Radical  error  of  the  opinion  that  a  full  and 
complete  protection  of  manufactures  would  he  in¬ 
jurious  to  the  agriculturists ,  by  ^  taxing  the  many 
for  the  benefit  of  the  few” 

As  the  preceding  views  sufficiently  establish  the 
pernicious  consequences  to  agriculture,  of  the  de¬ 
pression  of  manufactures,  the  subject  might  be  dis¬ 
missed  as  settled.  But  as  lures  have  been  held  out 
to  the  agriculturists,  of  great  advantages  resulting 
from  the  purchase  of  cheap  foreign  goods,  it  is  well 
worth  while  to  investigate  this  point,  in  order  to 
dispel  the  mass  of  error  with  which  the  subject  is 
enveloped. 

There  is  scarcely  an  opinion  more  generally  pre¬ 
valent,  than  this,  that  protecting  or  prohibitory  du¬ 
ties  on  manufactures  operate  as  a  “  tax  on  the  many,5* 
the  agriculturists,  “  for  the  benefit  of  the  few,”  the 
manufacturers.  Hence  a  large  portion  of  the  far¬ 
mers,  probably  one-half,  and  nearly  the  whole  of 
the  cotton  and  tobacco  planters,  have  been  uni¬ 
formly  opposed  to  them. 

That  the  advantage  of  purchasing  cheap  foreign 
goods,  quality  considered ,  is  insignificant,  and  at 
all  events  only  temporary,  is  capable  of  full  demon¬ 
stration  :  but  if  it  were  permanent,  it  produces  a 
great  balance  of  evil.  The  question,  put  in  its 
naked  and  correct  form,  stripped  of  the  glare  with 
which  it  is  surrounded,  is,  whether  a  large  portion 
of  one  class  of  our  citizens  shall  be  ruined,  and 
their  workmen  deprived  of  employment,  that  an¬ 
other  class  may  purchase  certain  articles  a  little 
cheaper  than  they  otherwise  would. 

To  illustrate  this  position,  I  take  the  case  of  the 
woollen  manufacturers  at  present.  Many  of  them, 
as  1  have  stated,  have  been  ruined,  and  their  esta¬ 
blishments  closed,  in  consequence  of  the  importa¬ 
tion  of  immense  quantities  of  inferior  goods,  sacri- 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  51 

ficed  at  auction  below  cost,  whereby  our  citizens 
were  deprived  of  a  market,  or  obliged  to  make  si¬ 
milar  sacrifices.  Suppose  by  the  reduction  of  the 
prices,  that  each  individual  in  the  community  who 
consumed  the  foreign  cloth,  had  saved  five  or  even 
ten  dollars,  would  it  not  be  almost  Herodian  cru¬ 
elty,  to  put  the  ruin  of  fellow  citizens  in  one  scale, 
and  let  this  paltry  advantage  outweigh  it  in  the 
other? 

But  even  supposing  the  low  prices  to  continue 
permanently,  the  advantage  is  all  ideal.  Of  this,  a 
comparison  between  the  situation  of  the  farming  in¬ 
terest  throughout  the  United  States  in  1814,  and 
in  1819-20,  affords  full  proof.  In  the  first  year, 
manufactured  articles  were  high— but  the  farmers 
were  generally  prosperous,  as  they  had  propor¬ 
tionate  prices  for  their  produce — and  were  then 
better  able  to  purchase  than  in  the  latter  period, 
when  manufactures  were  in  many  cases  reduced 
one-half,  but  when  the  farmers  throughout  the  mid¬ 
dle  states  suffered  the  most  intense  distress,  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  general  impoverishment,  arising 
from  the  enormous  importations  of  the  preceding 
years. 

Throughout  the  world,  with  scarcely  an  excep¬ 
tion,  poverty  and  wretchedness  are  universal  atten¬ 
dants  on  low  prices.  China,  It&iy,  Poland,  Spain, 
and  ill-fated  Ireland,  are  cases  in  point.  In  Ireland, 
labour  and  every  article  produced  by  it,  are  at  the 
lowest  possible  rates.  Labourers  are  hired  for  four, 
five,  and  six  pence  per  day,  equal  to  7,  9, 
and  11  cents.  Potatoes  are  about  5d.  per  14  lb. 
Other  articles  are  in  the  same  proportion.  Yet 
cheap  as  are  provisions,  clothing,  &c.  the  people 
are  more  wretched  there  than  in  any  other  part  of 
Europe.  The  United  States  and  Great  Bui|ain  are 
illustrations  of  a  contrary  character.  Labour  and 


52  Address  delivered  before  the 

its  productions  arehigh  in  both  countries.  But  no  man 
will  deny  the  superiority  of  the  mass  of  the  popu¬ 
lation  in  point  of  comfort  and  happiness,  over  those 
of  the  other  nations  specified. 

I  shall  now  endeavour  to  prove,  that  throughout 
a  large  portion  of  our  existence  as  a  nation,  our 
system  made  a  wanton  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of 
the  class  for  whose  particular  benefit  it  was  devis¬ 
ed,  and  that  it  44  taxed  the  many”  domestic  con¬ 
sumers,  “for  the  benefit  of  the  few”  foreign  manu¬ 
facturers. 

The  government  was  organized  in  1789,  from 
which  time  till  1810,  a  period  of  twent}^-one  years, 
the  manufacture  of  cottons  and  woollens,  and  iron 
wares  generally,  was  almost  unknown  in  this  coun¬ 
try.  Of  course  we  depended  upon  foreign  supplies 
almost  altogether.  There  was  no  competition  to 
check  exorbitant  prices.  It  is  therefore  highly 
probable  that  all  the  cotton  and  woollen  goods  and 
iron  ware  consumed  in  that  period,  to  the  amount 
of  from  15  to  g  20,000,000  per  annum,  cost  the 
American  consumer  from  15  to  25  per  cent,  more 
than  they  would  have  done,  had  those  manufactures 
been  established  here,  and  a  proper  competition 
preserved  between  the  foreign  and  domestic  manu¬ 
facturer. 

The  case  of  coarse  cottons  affords  a  powerful 
corroboration  of  this  theory.  The  East  India  article 
was  paltry  and  comparatively  worthless.  Yet  it 
generally  sold  at  about  25,  26,  or  27  cents  per  yard, 
while  there  was  no  American  competition.  Prohi¬ 
bitory  duties  were  enacted  in  1816:  and  the  prices, 
in  consequence  of  competition,  have  fallen  to  12, 
13,  and  14  cents,  for  an  excellent  article,  twice  as 
serviceable  as  the  East  India  trash.  Had  the  pro- 
tectioj$*been  extended  to  the  manufacture  in  1789, 
the  same  result  would  have  taken  place  at  that 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society.  53 

time,  which  would  have  produced  an  immense  sav¬ 
ing  to  the  farming  interest.  The  annual  importation 
was  about  §4,000,000.  Of  course  the  consumers 
paid  about  §  2,000,000  more  than  they  otherwise 
would  have  done,  had  the  manqf&cture  been  pro¬ 
perly  protected.  These  (Observations  apply  to  all 
other  manufactures,  not  established  ip  the  country, 
in  which  there  is  no  rivalship.  (  /  /  (  , 

I  have  another  strong  case  to  present  to  my  audi¬ 
tors,  to  prove  the  advantage  to  the  agriculturists,  of 
the  success,  and  consequently  of  the  protection,  of 
manufactures.  In  the  year  1821,  the  manufacture 
of  cotton  bagging  was  prostrated  in  Kentucky.  The 
imported  article  was  sold  at  New  Orleans  throughout 
the  year  1822,  at  from  40  to  50  cents  per  yard,  or  an 
average  of  45  cents,  although  the  price  in  Dundee  was 
only  9d.  a  lOd.  sterling.  Towards  the  close  of  the  year 
1822,  the  manufacture  was  revived  in  Kentucky,  and 
considerable  supplies  were  forwarded  to  N.  Orleans. 
The  competition  reduced  the  price  to  little  more 
than  half.  In  three  prices  current,  now  before  me, 
of  Dec.  27,  1823,  and  Jan.  31  and  Feb.  7,  1824,  the 
Scotch  bagging  is  quoted  at  22  a  26  cents,  and 
Kentucky  at  20  to  22,  or  an  average  for  the  for¬ 
mer  of  24  cents,  being  a  reduction  of  about  21  cents 
per  yard.  Let  it  be  distinctly  observed,  as  having 
an  important  bearing  on  the  subject,  that  the  price 
in  Dundee  had  not  undergone  any  material  altera¬ 
tion  within  the  time  embraced  in  these  statements, 
and. that,  therefore,  the  reduction  of  the  price  of  the 
foreign  article  is  solely  attributable  to  the  compe¬ 
tition  of  the  domestic  one. 

The  quantity  of  cotton  bagging  used  in  the  United 
States  is  about  3,300,000  yards  per  annum,  which, 
during  the  year  1822,  at  45  cents  per  yard,  cost 
about  §  1,485,000.  The  cost  in  1823,  at  24  cents, 
was  about  §^792,000,  making  a  difference  in  favour 
e  2 


54  Address  delivered  before  the 

of  the  cotton  planters,  in  the  latter  year,  of  above 
8  690,000,  arising,  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt, 
from  the  revival  of  the  manufacture  in  Ken¬ 
tucky.  Yet,  strange  and  impolitic  as  it  really  is, 
every  cotton  planter  in  congress  was  violently  op¬ 
posed  to  the  protection  of  manufactures  generally, 
and  in  a  most  especial  manner  to  that  of  cotton 
bagging !! ! 

From  a  full  consideration  of  the  effect  of  compe¬ 
tition  in  the  case  of  coarse  cottons  and  cotton  bag¬ 
ging,  and  in  every  case  where  any  of  our  manufac¬ 
tures  have  been  adequately  protected,  it  may  be 
pronounced  as  a  general  maxim,  with  scarcely  an 
exception,  that  prohibitory  duties,  or  even  absolute 
prohibitions,  provided  their  operation  be  prospec¬ 
tive,  far  from  6t  taxing  the  many  for  the  benefit  of 
“  the  few,”  by  raising  prices,  never  fail  to  produce 
reductions  of  price  and  constant  supplies.  On  this 
subject,  I  shall  call  in  the  aid  of  Alexander  Hamil¬ 
ton — 

“  When  a  domestic  manufacture  has  attained  to  per- 
(( fection,  and  has  engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  it,  a  com- 

petent  number  of  persons,  it  invariably  becomes  cheaper, 
a  *  *  *  The  internal  competition  which  takes  place,  soon 
“  does  away  every  thing  like  monopoly ;  and  by  degrees 
“  reduces  the  price  of  the  article  to  the  minimum  of  a  reason - 
“  able  profit  on  the  capital  employed.  This  accords  with  the 
“  reason  of  the  thing,  and  with  experience.” 

I  shall  conclude  this  head  with  one  more  case  of 
the  injury  inflicted  by  our  policy  on  agriculture. 

In  consequence  of  the  commotions  in  Spain,  great 
numbers  of  full-blooded  Merinos  were  imported  in¬ 
to  this  country  in  1810,  1811,  and  1812,  and  pur¬ 
chased  by  our  farmers  at  exorbitant  prices.  The  breed 
was  propagated  to  a  great  extent — and  an  adequate 
protection  of  the  woollen  manufacture  would  have 
rendered  this  speculation  highly  advantageous  to  the 
farmers.  But,  to  avoid  “taxing  the  many  for  the 


55 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society. 

“  benefit  of  the  few,”  the  woollen  manufacture  was 
allowed  to  be  prostrated  in  1817,  1818,  and  1819, 
and  thus  not  only  the  large  capital,  probably  g  1,- 
500,000  invested  in  Merinos,  and  half  and  quarter 
breeds,  was  nearly  all  sacrificed ;  but  the  fanners 
were  deprived  of  a  steady,  increasing  market  for 
wool,  which  would  have  enabled  them  to  employ 
to  advantage  a  portion  of  their  lands,  rendered  use¬ 
less  by  the  prohibition  of  our  breadstuff's  in  nearly  all 
parts  of  Europe,  and  produced  them  an  annual  in¬ 
come  of  probably  from  2  to  g  3,000,000. 

VII. 

My  seventh  position  is,  that  the  protection  of  ma¬ 
nufactures  would  be  beneficial  not  only  to  our  mer¬ 
chants,  but  to  the  merchants  and  manufacturers  of 
Great  Britain. 

On  this  point  I  shall  be  very  brief,  and  barely 
sketch  the  outlines  of  the  arguments,  leaving  the 
details  to  be  filled  up  by  my  auditors. 

That  our  commerce  is,  and  has  been  from  the  or¬ 
ganization  of  the  government,  overdone,  that  is  to 
say,  that  there  have  been  at  all  times  too  many 
merchants  for  the  commerce  of  the  country,  is  a 
truth  of  which  no  man  of  observation  or  candour 
can  for  a  moment  doubt.  This  has  arisen  obviously 
from  the  non-establishment  of  a  variety  of  manu¬ 
factures,  those,  for  instance,  of  cottons,  woollens, 
iron  ware,  glass,  china,  & c.  &c.  in  which,  for  want 
of  adequate  protection,  our  citizens  were  for  a  se¬ 
ries  of  years  unable  to  compete  with  foreign  rivals ; 
and  many  of  which,  even  at  present,  are  in  a  sickly 
and  drooping  state,  and  some  of  the  most  important 
almost  wholly  unessayed  in  this  country.  Hundreds 
of  young  men,  in  every  stage  of  our  career,  who 
would  have  been  devoted  to  those  branches,  had 
they  been  extensively  carried  on,  have  been  placed 


56 


Address  delivered  before  the 

in  counting-houses,  and  become  merchants,  without 
the  necessary  friends,  capital,  or  talents  for  the 
profession.  Hence  there  are  probably  as  many  ship¬ 
ping  merchants  in  the  United  ^States  as  in  Great 
Britain:  scarcely  a  port  in  the  country  that  has  not 
a  number  of  them — and  hencefcompetition  has  al¬ 
most  always  raised  our  staples:  fcoo  high  in  our  mar¬ 
kets — reduced  them  too  low  abroad  by  glutting  the 
foreign  markets — raised  the  prices  of  the  return  car¬ 
goes  in  the  West  Indies  and  elsewhere — and  re¬ 
duced  the  prices  of  those  cargoes  on  their  arrival 
in  the  United  States.  To  these  combined  causes 
may  be  fairly  ascribed  the  misfortunes  and  ship¬ 
wreck  of  so  large  a  portion  of  the  merchants  of 
this  country,  particularly  during  the  wars  of  the 
French  revolution,  when,  to  speak  within  bounds, 
three-fourths  of  them  became  bankrupts,  notwith¬ 
standing  we  enjoyed  a  commerce  without  prece¬ 
dent  in  the  annals  of  neutral  nations.  Adequate 
protection  of  manufactures  at  present,  would  not 
only  prevent  a  continuance  of  this  inordinate  in¬ 
crease,  but  induce  some  of  our  merchants  to  devote 
themselves  to  those  branches,  and  thus  reduce  the 
number  within  bounds  more  commensurate  with  our 
commerce — of  course  furnish  employment  to  some 
of  the  capital  which  the  limitation  of  that  commerce 
stagnates — and,  in  addition,  afford  an  opening  for 
the  younger  branches  of  the  families  of  our  mer¬ 
chants,  whose  parents  at  present  find  it  extremely 
difficult  to  devise  occupations  ‘  for  them  by  which 
they  may  be  enabled  at  a  future  day  to  support 
themselves. 


When  I  assert  that  the  protection  of  manufac¬ 
tures  would  be  beneficial  to  the  manufacturers  and 
merchants  of  Great  Britain,  it  is  not  with  a  view  of 
sporting  a  paradox.  It  is  a  position  founded  on  the 
most  mature  consideration  I  can  give  the  subject. 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  57 

I  trust  I  have  proved  that  this  country,  generally 
speaking,  is  in  an  impoverished  state — and  that  its 
impoverishment  arises  from  the  impolicy  of  allow¬ 
ing  our  manufactures  to  be  depressed,  and  the  ma¬ 
nufacturers  to  be  driven  to  the  culture  of  the  soil, 
whereby  the  production  of  our  great  staples  is  in¬ 
creased  beyond  the  demand  at  home  and  abroad, 
so  as  to  depress  the  prices  below  a  fair  remunera¬ 
tion  for  the  time,  talent,  and  capital  employed. 

An  impoverished  nation  must  curtail  its  expenses, 
and  of  course  its  importations,  within  narrow  limits. 
Luxuries  are  in  a  great  measure  renounced,  except 
by  the  few  who  escape  the  general  pressure.  Many 
conveniences  are  in  like  manner  given  up;  and, 
with  the  prudent,  expenses  are  in  a  great  measure 
confined  to  necessaries.  The  payments  of  such  a 
nation  moreover  must  always  be  irregular  and  un¬ 
certain.  Large  losses  will  inevitably  accrue  by 
bankruptcy. 

On  the  contrary  a  prosperous  nation  purchases 
freely,  not  merely  of  necessaries  and  conveniences, 
but,  on  a  large  scale,  of  luxuries,  on  which  the  pro¬ 
fits  of  an  exporting  nation  are  greater  than  on  mere 
necessaries.  If  our  cotton,  woollen,  and  iron  ma¬ 
nufactures  were  adequately  protected,  so  that  we 
should  import  less  of  them,  and  keep  our  popula¬ 
tion  profitably  employed,  circulation  would  be  brisk, 
our  citizens  would  be  prosperous,  and  our  impor¬ 
tations  of  plate,  plated  ware,  laces,  merino  shawls, 
girandoles,  china,  Brussels  carpets,  &c.  &c.  would 
be  doubled  or  trebled — and  thus  our  total  importa¬ 
tions  be  greatly  increased. 

Let  any  man  for  a  moment  reflect  on  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  present  scale  of  expense  of  the 
citizens  of  the  southern  states,  when,  I  repeat,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Mr.  Carter,  “large  and  ample  estates , 
once  the  seats  of  opulence ,  which  supported  their 


58 


Address  delivered  before  the 

proprietors  in  affluence  and  comfort ,  are  now  thrown 
out  to  waste  and  decay f9 — and  the  scale  formerly, 
when  they  sold  their  upland  cotton  at  20  a  25  cents 
per  lb.  and  tobacco  at  $150  her  hhd.  and  he  will 
fully  appreciate  the  soundness  of  these  opinions. 

The  proof  of  this  theory  is  at  hand — and  is  con¬ 
clusive,  by  a  comparison  of  our  consumption  of  fo¬ 
reign  goods  at  two  several  periods. 

The  imports  of  the  United  States  in  six  years, 
from  1796  to  1801  inclusive,  wire  $507,052,697 

Re-exportations  -  -  -  217,596,598 

Six  years  consumption,  -  23$  289,456,099 


Average  -  -  -  $48,242,683 


Our  population  during  that  period  averaged  about 
4,750,000.  Of  course  our  consumption  or  foreign 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  averaged  vabout  ten 
dollars  per  head.  Mark  the  contrast. 

Our  imports  for  1821,  1822,  and 

1823,  were  -  $223,406,532 

Re-exportations  ...  71,132,312 

Three  years  consumption,  24$  152,274,220 

Average  -  -  -  -  $50,758,073 

Our  population  during  the  last  period,  probably 
averaged  about  10,200,000.  Our  consumption  of 
foreign  articles,  therefore,  has  been  below  five  dol¬ 
lars  per  head,  but  little  more  than  half  what  it  was 
in  the  former  period.25  Some  reduction,  it  must  be 

23Seyhert,  page  266.  24  Treasury  returns. 

25  This  argument  would  receive  great  additional  force 
if  we  could  ascertain  the  amount  of  teas,  coffee,  spices, 
sugars,  wines,  &c.  imported  at  both  periods.  The  con- 


59 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society. 

allowed,  has  taken  place  of  late  in  the  prices  of  our 
imports,  from  what  they  commanded  during  the  chief 
part  of  the  wars  of  the  French  revolution,  when  they 
rose  extravagantly,  in  consequence  of  the  excessive 
issues  of  pa  per  money  in  Great  Britain.  But  the  great 
rise  was  subsequent  to  the  first  period  from  1796  to 
1801,  in  which  years  it  was  inconsiderable.  At  all 
events,  it  bears  no  proportion  to  the  very  great  re¬ 
duction  of  the  amount  of  our  imports  per  capita. 

There  is,  however,  another  point  of  view  in  which 
to  consider  our  relations  with  Great  Britain;  that 
is,  as  regards  her  government.  On  this  I  wish  to  of¬ 
fer  a  single  observation,  to  wThich  I  request  par¬ 
ticular  attention  for  the  sake  of  both  countries.  If 
such  a  mighty  power  could  regard  this  country  with 
sentiments  of  jealousy,  as  likely  at  a  future  day  to 
dispute  with  her  the  trident  of  Neptune,  as  some 
of  our  enthusiastic  citizens  fondly  believe,  then 
the  policy  we  pursue  is  highly  promotive  of  her 
views,  and  ought  to  be  advocated  bjT  all  her  friends 
with  zeal ;  as  it  wastes  our  resources,  and  impo¬ 
verishes  our  citizens — and  will  in  the  same  degree, 
at  all  future  times,  enfeeble  us.  But  “  self-poised” 
as  she  is,  with  resources  such  as  no  nation  ever  be¬ 
fore  possessed,  and  those  resources  likely,  from  the 
profound  wisdom  of  her  policy,  to  continue  perma¬ 
nently,  such  feelings  and  views  are  not  supposable. 

I  wow  proceed  to  reply  to  some  of  the  most  plau¬ 
sible  and  popular  objections  to  the  legislative  pro¬ 
tection  of  manufactures. 

First  objection — Demoralization . 

Among  the  objections  to  the  protection  of  manu¬ 
factures,  their  tendency  to  demoralization  has  held 

sumption  of  these  must  increase  with  the  great  increase 
of  population,  however  great  the  general  depression. 


60  Address  delivered  before  the 

a  conspicuous  place,  and,  for  want  of  reflexion,  has 
had  a  pernicious  influence  even  on  men  of  minds 
beyond  the  common  level.  And  hence,  thousands 
of  young  people,  who,  under  a  correct  policy,  might 
and  would  be  profitably  employed  for  themselves 
and  the  community,  in  manufacturing  establish¬ 
ments,  are  brought  up  in  idleness,  and  exposed  to 
the  seductions  of  vice  and  crime,  which  always  fol¬ 
low  in  the  train  of  idleness.  Of  the  persons  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  cotton  manufactories  throughout  the 
United  States,  amounting  probably  to  150,000, 
whose  numbers  might  be  greatly  increased,  two- 
thirds  at  least  are  young  females,  of  whom  half 
would  be  absolutely  or  nearly  idle,  but  for  this 
branch  of  business.  While  thus  employed,  they 
contract  habits  of  order,  regularity,  and  industry, 
which  lay  a  broad  and  deep  foundation  of  public 
and  private  future  usefulness.  They  become,  as 
they  arrive  at  a  marriageable  age,  eligible  partners 
for  life  for  young  men,  to  whom  they  will  be  able 
to  afford  substantial  aid  in  the  support  of  families, 
a  consideration  which  cannot  fail  to  have  due  weight 
with  those  possessed  of  common  prudence.  Thus 
the  inducements  to  early  marriages,  and  the  pros¬ 
pects  of  comfort  and  independence  in  that  state, 
are  greatly  increased — the  licentiousness  to  which 
a  life  of  celibacy  is  exposed,  proportionably  restrain¬ 
ed — and  immensely  important  effects  produced  on 
the  welfare  of  society.  Hence  it  is  obvious,  that 
this  objection  is  wholly  unfounded — and  that  the 
encouragement  of  manufactures,  by  stimulating 
and  rewarding  industry,  has,  on  the  contrary,  a 
constant  tendency  to  promote  sound  morals. 

It  is  the  misfortune  of  this  country,  that  most  of 
our  maxims  on  this  and  some  other  vital  subjects, 
are  derived  from  views  of  society  and  manners  in 
Europe,  wholly  inapplicable  to  our  situation.  Many 
of  those  views  are  partial  and  confined,  even  as  they 


61 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society . 

regard  Europe,  and  are  calculated  to  foster  precon~ 
ceived  prejudices;  for  a  broad  and  liberal  investi¬ 
gation  of  the  effect  of  manufactures  in  England, 
France,  or  Germany,  would  prove,  beyond  contro¬ 
versy,  that  their  tendency  is  salutary  even  there,  as 
they  necessarily  promote  industry,  which  is  one  of 
the  greatest  preservatives  from  vice  and  crime 
throughout  the  world. 

Fortunately  I  have  means  in  my  power  to  esta¬ 
blish  this  point  as  respects  Great  Britain,  the  great¬ 
est  manufacturing  nation  in  the  world,  by  a  com¬ 
parison  of  six  counties,  three  where  manufactures 
and  three  where  agriculture  principally  prevail. 


Popula¬ 

tion. 

Families 
engaged 
in  Ma¬ 
nufac¬ 
tures, 
trade, 
&c. 

Families 
engaged 
in  agri¬ 
culture. 

Paupers. 

|  Criminals. 

Poor  rates 

Lancaster 

1,052,859 

152,271 

22,723 

46,200 

371 

£.249,585 

Yorkshire 

1,175,251 

137,048 

63,830 

77,661 

245 

453,461 

Stafford 

341,824 

42,435 

18,285 

22,510 

91 

133,701 

2,569,934 

331,754 

104,838 

146,371 

707 

836,747 

Norfolk 

343,368 

26,201 

36,368 

42,707 

163 

£.256,014 

Suffolk 

270,54  ' 

17,418 

30,745 

36,110 

109 

340,384 

Essex 

289,424 

17,160 

33,206 

38,337 

144 

254,837 

903,334 

60,779 

100,319 

117,154 

416 

£.751,235 

SYNOPSIS. 


Manufac¬ 

tures. 

Agricul¬ 

ture. 

|  Paupers. 

Criminals. 

Poor 

rates. 

vU- 

Per 

cent. 

Per 

cent. 

Per 

cent. 

Per 

cent. 

Per 

head. 

Lancaster,  York  St  Stafford 

76 

24 

5.68 

.027 

6s.  fid. 

Norfolk,  Suffolk  St  Essex 

37 

63 

12.9 

.046 

16s.  10  d. 

F 


62 


Address  delivered  before  the 

Thus  it  appears  that  in  the  agricultural  counties 
the  proportion  of  paupers  is  above  100,  of  criminals 
60,  and  of  poor  rates  150  per  cent,  more  than  in 
those  where  manufactures  prevail. 

These  tables  demand  the  most  serious  considera¬ 
tion,  not  merely  from  our  statesmen,  but  from  our 
citizens  at  large.  They  operate  a  complete  refuta¬ 
tion  of  the  prevailing  error,  on  the  subject  of  the  de¬ 
moralizing  tendency  of  manufactures,  and  prove 
that  this  objection,  like  all  the  others  so  confident¬ 
ly  relied  on,  when  brought  to  the  test  of  fact,  proves 
utterly  fallacious. 

The  population  is  taken  from  Lowe’s  “  Present 
state  of  England” — the  number  of  families  engaged 
in  manufactures  and  in  agriculture,  as  well  as  the 
poor  rates,  from  the  Monthly  Magazine  for  March, 
1824,  where  they  are  derived  from  the  late  census 
— the  enumeration  of  the  paupers  and  criminals 
from  Colquhoun’s  Treatise  on  Indigence.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  corroborate  the  deductions  arising  from 
these  facts,  by  any  authority  whatever.  They  carry 
conviction  with  them ;  but,  to  remove  all  doubts 
from  the  minds  of  those  who  may  be  disposed  to  in¬ 
credulity,  I  quote  the  opinion  of  Colquhoun,  whose 
opportunities  were  second  to  those  of  no  man  in 
Europe,  and  who  explicitly  pronounces  a  condemna¬ 
tion  of  the  prevailing  dogma : 

“  Contrary  to  the  generally  received  opinion,  the  num- 
“  bers  of  paupers  [he  might,  as  his  own  tables  evince,  have 
“added — and  of  criminals,]  in  those  counties  which  are 
“  chiefly  agricultural,  greatly  exceed  those  where  manu¬ 
factures  prevail. 5,26 

The  citizens  of  the  southern  states,  who  are  so 
very  solicitous  to  preserve  our  morals  from  degene¬ 
rating,  by  the  protection  of  manufactures,  may 
therefore  calm  their  apprehensions,  and  spare  them- 


Colquhoun  on  Indigence,  p.  272. 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  63 

selves  any  uneasiness  on  the  subject.  They  are 
disposed  to  be  wroth  when  any  of  our  citizens  in¬ 
terfere  with  that  portion  of  their  population  des¬ 
tined  to  labour  on  their  plantations,  whom  they 
deem  themselves  fully  competent  to  manage:  and 
they  may  trust  the  citizens  of  the  other  states  with 
the  management,  and  care  of  the  morals,  of  their 
free  work  people.  Above  all  things,  if  they  conde^ 
scend  to  watch  over  the  morals  of  our  people,  they 
are  respectfully  requested  to  devise  some  other 
mode  of  preserving  them  than  the  one  they  have 
hitherto  pursued,  of  devoting  so  many  of  them  to 
idleness  and  pauperism. 

Second  objection — We  are  not  ripe  for  manufac¬ 
tures . 

Many  of  the  opposers  of  the  legislative  protec¬ 
tion  of  manufactures,  make  large  professions  of 
friendship  for  them,  but  hold  out  the  very  fallacious 
idea,  contradicted  by  almost  universal  experience, 
that  when  a  country  is  46  ripe”  for  them,  they  will 
arise  spontaneously  without  protection — but  that 
when  a  country  is  not  thus  “  ripe ,”  it  is  improper 
to  force  them  by  what  is  termed  hot*bed  culture, 
that  is,  by  protecting  or  prohibitory  duties. 

The  elements  of  this  “ripeness,”  on  which  so 
much  emphasis  is  laid,  are,  the  raw  material  in 
abundance — sufficient  capital — and  cheapness  of 
labour.  I  hope  to  make  it  appear  as  clear  as  the 
noon-day  sun,  that  a  nation  may  possess  all  these, 
and  yet  be  disabled  by  overwhelming  foreign  com¬ 
petition  from  availing  herself  of  them.  I  will  in 
the  first  instance  take  the  case  of  the  cotton  manu¬ 
facture  in  the  United  States. 

So  far  as  regarded  the  raw  material,  no  country 
was  ever  more  ripe  for  any  manufacture  than  the  U. 
States  were  for  this  one  from  1795  to  1805,  during 


64  Address  delivered  before  the 

which  time  capital  was  superabundant  here  for 
every  object  of  profitable  speculation.  And  the 
machinery  employed  in  cotton  spinning  and  weav¬ 
ing,  is  managed  chiefly  by  young  females,  who 
formerly  wove  twenty  or  twenty -five  yards  per 
diem — and  each  of  whom  can  at  present  attend 
two  power  looms,  which  together  produce  fifty 
yards  per  day.  The  labour,  of  course,  counts  for 
little,  being  formerly  less  than  two  cents  per  yard, 
and  now  less  than  one.  We  possessed,  moreover, 
mechanical  talent  for  making  machinery,  not  ex¬ 
celled  in  the  world — and  a  boundless  extent  of  wa¬ 
ter  power.  Here  then  is  a  case  completely  ful¬ 
filling  all  the  conditions  of  “ripeness;” — com¬ 
pletely  testing  this  theory ;  and  either  fully  esta¬ 
blishing  it,  or  proving  it  radically  unsound,  and 
fraught  with  pernicious  consequences  to  any  nation 
which  acts  on  it.  Unfortunately  for  our  political 
economists,  in  this  instance,  as  in  almost  every 
other,  fact  puts  down  their  theory.  * 

Mr.  Gallatin,  whose  attention  was  called  to  ma¬ 
nufactures  by  an  order  of  the  house  of  Representa¬ 
tives,  and  who  took  great  pains  to  investigate  their 
situation,  informs  us  in  his  report  on  the  subject, 
that  in  Rhode  Island,  where  the  cotton  manufac¬ 
ture  was  first  established,  and  which  has  now  be¬ 
come  the  chief  seat  of  it,  there  was  one  cotton  mill 
erected  in  1791 — in  four  years  more,  another! — 
and  in  1803  and  1804,  two  more  in  Massachusetts! 
During  the  three  succeeding  years,  there  were  ten 
more  erected  in  Rhode  Island,  and  one  in  Connec¬ 
ticut  !  making  in  all  fifteen,  erected  in  those  states 
before  1807,  which  employed  8000  spindles,  and 
produced  about  300,000  lbs.  of  yarn  per  annum! 
In  the  other  states,  particularly  at  Patterson  in 
New  Jersey,  and  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia',  seve¬ 
ral  attempts  were  made  to  establish  the  manufac- 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  65 

ture,  which  almost  universally  failed,  to  the  ruin  of 
the  undertakers.  And,  but  for  the  restrictive  sys¬ 
tem,  the  war,  and  the  prohibitory  square  yard  duty, 
this  manufacture,  so  peculiarly  calculated  for  this 
country,  and  for  which  we  were  so  “ripe”  would 
to  this  day  have  remained  in  a  groveling  state. 

Let  it  be  observed  that  the  average 
export  of  cotton  from  the  United  States 
from  1795  to  1799  inclusive,  was  lbs .  7,012,745 

From  1800  to  1806,  also  inclusive,  35,432,219 
But  according  to  a  report  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  of  commerce  and  manufactures 
in  1816,  the  consumption  in  1800  was 
only  lbs,  150,000 ! 

And  in  1805  was  only  500,000  ! 

Whereas,  under  the  operation  of  the 
restrictive  system,  the  consumption  in 
1810,  rose  to  lbs.  3,000,000 

and  in  1815,  by  the  war,  to  27,000,000 

So  much,  fellow  citizens,  for  the  spontaneous 
growth  and  maturity  of  manufactures,  “  when  a  na¬ 
tion  is  ripe  for  them.”  This,  then,  appears  one  of 
those  pretty  phrases,  which  mankind,  through'  in¬ 
dolence  and  w'ant  of  disposition  to  take  the  pains 
to  investigate,  receive  on  trust  as  oracular,  but 
which  are  mere  political  ignes  fatui,  insuring  the 
decay  of  those  nations  which  adopt  them. 

Further.  We  are  now  “ripe”  for  the  manufac¬ 
ture  of  fine  muslins,  so  far  as  the  raw  material, 
machinery,  capital,  skill,  and  cheapness  of  labour 
are  concerned.  But  we  cannot  compete  with  the 
superior  capitals  of  the  British  manufacturers,  for 
want  of  adequate  protection. 

As  this  is  a  favourite  dogma  with  the  supporters 
of  the  present  withering  policy  of  the  country,  and 
as  thousands  of  our  citizens  labour  under  the  delu¬ 
sion  of  receiving  it  with  implicit  faith,  I  think  it 
f  2 


66 


Address  delivered  before  the 

time  well  employed,  to  corroborate  the  refutation 
of  it  arising  from  our  own  experience  by  strong  ex¬ 
amples  derived  from  that  of  Europe. 

England  previously  to  the  reign  of  the  third  and 
fourth  Edward,  was  “ripe”  for  the  woollen  manu¬ 
facture,  so  far  as  cheapness  of  labour  and  super¬ 
abundance  of  the  raw  material  were  concerned — 
and  there  was  no  deficiency  of  capital  for  the  esta¬ 
blishment.  According  to  the  theory  of  our  politi¬ 
cal  economists,  that  branch  should  have  arisen  there 
spontaneously,  centuries  before  the  reigns  of  those 
inonarchs.  But  their  predecessors,  persuaded,  it 
is  to  be  presumed,  that  the  day  of  “  ripeness ”  had 
not  arrived,  took  no  pains  to  fosterthis  industry;  and 
hence  England  shipped  immense  quantities  of  her 
wool  to  Flanders,  as  we  do  of  our  cotton  to  Europe 
—received  it  back  in  a  manufactured  state  at  an 
advance  of  two,  three,  four,  and  five  fold — 'employ¬ 
ed  the  poor,  and  supported  the  government,  of  the 
Belgic  provinces— -kept  thousands  of  her  own  peo¬ 
ple  partly  unemployed,  or  wholly  so,  as  paupers— 
and  withered  and  blasted  the  national  prosperity. 
The  Edwards,  wiser  than  their  predecessors,  saw  that 
the  ripeness  depended  on  protection — and  wisely 
afforded  that  protection.  The  manufacture  in  conse¬ 
quence  prospered.  Those  monarchs  clothed  their 
people  with  their  own  cloth — saved  large  sums  to 
the  country — induced  numbers  of  valuable  manu¬ 
facturers  to  immigrate  into  England,  with  their  ta¬ 
lents,  their  capitals,  and  their  industry,— and  thus 
enhanced  the  national  wealth,  power,  and  resources, 
at  the  expense  of  a  rival  nation. 

Ireland  affords  another  illustration  of  this  theory. 
Her  pasturage  is  second  to  none  in  the  world.  She 
raises  large  flocks  of  sheep,  and  could  raise  treble  the 
number.  Labour  is  cheap.  People,  we  are  recently 
told,  can  be  hired  there  at  4d.  and  6d.  per  diem.  Ca- 


67 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society . 

pilai  is  not  deficient;  but  if  it  were,  it  might  be  had 
to  any  extent  in  Great  Britain.  She  is  therefore 
admirably  calculated  for  the  woollen  manufacture, 
and  ought  to  be  able,  not  merely  to  clothe  her  own 
population,  but  now,  as  she  enjoys  a  free  trade,  to 
export  immense  quantities  of  woollen  goods  to 
this  and  other  countries,  where  the  market  is  open 
to  her.  But  by  a  statement  now  before  me,  it  ap¬ 
pears  that  though  she  exported  in  the  year  1822, 
wool  to  a  very  considerable  amount,  she  exported 
no  woollen  goods  whatever,  and  the  chief  part  of 
her  consumption  of  fine  and  superfine  cloths  is 
derived  from  Great  Britain.  Her  manufacture  is 
confined  almost  altogether  to  coarse  goods. 

Third  objection — Capital  not  so  profitably  employed 
in  manufactures  as  in  agriculture . 

We  are  assured  by  the  opposers  of  the  legislative 
protection  of  manufactures,  that  capital  employed 
in  them  is  not  productive  of  so  much  national  ad¬ 
vantage  as  what  is  invested  in  agriculture.  This  is 
a  vital  error,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  com¬ 
parison  between  the  culture  and  the  manufacture  of 
cotton.  This  culture  and  manufacture  are  fair  sub¬ 
jects  of  comparison,  as  they  are  among  the  most 
profitable  of  their  respective  genera  of  industry,  and 
their  results  are  more  readily  reducible  to  rule. 

A  company  of  negroes,  seventy-five,  young 
and  old,  will  furnish  45,  but  say  50  working 
hands,  who,  under  every  advantage  of  sea¬ 
son  and  soil,  may  average  per  annum,  about 
1000  lbs.  of  cotton  each,  equal  on  the  whole 
to  50,000  lbs.  This,  at  15  cents  per  pound 
amounts  to  -  -  -  g  7,500 

Fifty  females,  attending  each  two  power 
looms,  and  manufacturing  50  yards  per  day, 


68 


Address  delivered  before  the 

produce  in  the  year  750,000  yards,  which,  at 
11  cents  per  yard,  amount  to  -  $  82,500 

At  four  yards  and  a  half  to  the  pound, 
these  weavers  consume  about  166,600  lbs.  of 
yarn,  produced  out  of  190,000  lbs.  of  raw 
cotton,  which,  at  15  cents,  amount  to  -  28,500 


Net  national  gain  -  54,000 

166,600  lbs  of  yarn,  at  28  cents  per  lb. 
amount  to  -  -  -  46,480 

Fifty  persons  engaged  in  weaving,  require  100 
persons,  male  and  female,  young  and  old,  to  per¬ 
form  the  various  operations  of  blowing,  carding, 
drawing,  roving,  stretching,  spinning,  spooling, 
warping,  dressing,  and  jobbing. 

Thus  it  appears  that  150  persons,  most  of  whom, 
but  for  the  cotton  manufacture,  would  be  either  par¬ 
tially  employed,  or  wholly  idle,  save  to  the  nation 
8  54,000  per  annum,  or  $560  each — whereas  50 
working  negroes,  encumbered  with  25  non-labour¬ 
ers,  bring  into  the  country  only  $7,500,  or  $  150 
per  head — or,  if  we  take  into  view,  as  is  perfectly 
right,  the  whole  75,  it  is  only  $100. 

At  the  above  rate,  21  females  in  Manchester, 
pay  for  the  proceeds  of  the  labour  of  50  able-bodied 
negroes,  encumbered  with  25  incapable  of  work 
from  superannuation  or  infancy. 

The  wages  of  the  150  persons,  say  50  at 
250  cents  per  week,  and  100  at  175  cents, 
amount  to  $  15,600 

of  which  probably  one-half  goes  to  enrich 
the  neighbouring  farmers. 

Such  an  establishment,  moreover,  affords 
employment  to  probably  an  equal  number  of 
persons  engaged  in  various  handicraft  occu¬ 
pations — but  say  only  50,  who,  with  the  150 


69 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society . 

employed  in  the  manufactory,  make  up  200 
customers  to  the  neighbouring  farmers  for 
provisions,  drink,  and  fuel,  at  say  45  dol¬ 
lars  per  head,  which  amounts  to  per  annum  §  9,000 

Those  handicraft  people  afford  a  market 
to  the  farmers  for  timber,  hides,  skins,  &c. 

&c.  which  can  scarcely  amount  to  less  than, 

per  annum  -  §  10,000 

The  importance  of  this  point,  will  warrant  de¬ 
voting  a  few  lines  more  to  it.  Alexander  Hamil¬ 
ton’s  views  on  it,  as  indeed  on  every  subject  con¬ 
nected  with  political  economy,  were  singularly  cor¬ 
rect.  He  says — 

“  Manufacturing1  establishments  afford  occasional  and  ex- 
“  tra  employment  to  industrious  individuals  and families ,  who 
“  are  willing  to  devote  the  leisure  resulting  from  the  in- 
“  termissions  of  their  ordinary  pursuits,  to  collateral  la- 
“  hours,  as  a  resource  for  multiplying  their  acquisitions  or 
“  their  enjoyments.  The  husbandman  himself  experiences 
6i  a  new  source  of  profit  and  support  from  the  increased Indus- 
(t  try  of  his  wife  and  daughters,  invited  and  stimulated  by 
“  the  demands  of  the  neighbouring  manufactories.” 

I  trust  that  these  statements,  which  challenge  a 
rigorous  investigation,  fully  prove  that  the  idea  of 
the  inferiority  of  manufacturing  labour,  especially 
when  aided  by  machinery,  is  the  reverse  of  truth — 
as  are  the  opinions  of  those  who  regard  the  com¬ 
plete  protection  of  manufactures  not  merely  as  in¬ 
different  but  pernicious  to  the  agriculturists.  It  is 
scarcely  possible  to  conceive  of  an  error  more  de¬ 
structive  to  their  interests  or  to  national  prosperity. 

This  is  the  theory.  Now  to  the  fact  in  confirma¬ 
tion  . 

Mr.  Gallatin,  in  his  report  on  manufactures,  da¬ 
ted  April  17,  1810,  informs  us  that  a  cotton  manu¬ 
factory  in  Providence,  R.  I.  gave  employment  to 
178  persons,  of  whom  24  males,  and  29  females, 
were  within  the  establishment — and  50  males  and  75 


70  Jddress  delivered  before  the 

females  at  their  respective  homes.  It  is  highly  pro¬ 
bable,  that  the  whole  of  the  latter,  and  half  at  least 
of  the  former,  belonged  to  the  families  of  the  neigh¬ 
bouring  farmers. 

It  is  well  w  orth  while  to  ponder  on  the  effects  of 
our  present  system  in  a  national  point  of  view,  the 
grand  view  in  which  it  will  be  regarded  by  real 
statesmen. 

The  United  States  ship  to  Europe  60,000 
lbs  of  cotton,  which,  at  15  cents  per  lb. 

amount  to . g  9,000 

They  receive  in  return  72,000  yards  of  cot¬ 
ton  goods  at,  suppose,  an  average  of  12| 

cents  per  yard . 9,000 

These  72,000  yards  are  produced  out  of  18,000 
lbs.  of  cotton  wool.  Thus,  in  the  exchange  between 
the  United  States  and  Europe,  the  latter  makes  a 
clear  gain  of  42,000  lbs.  out  of  60,000. 

It  will  be  observed  that  I  have  taken  the  coarse 
cottons  into  consideration.  Had  I  predicated  the 
calculation  on  fine  goods  at  15,  20,  25,  or  30  cents 
per  yard,  as  I  might  have  done,  it  would  have  ad¬ 
ded  greatly  to  the  force  of  the  argument. 

Some  politicians  have  asserted,  and  even  in  print, 
that  it  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  cotton  planter, 
whether  he  sells  his  cotton  to  his  fellow  citizens  in 
Rhode  Island,  or  to  the  subjects  of  the  powers  of 
Europe.  He,  to  whom  it  is  indifferent  whether  he 
enriches  his  fellow  citizens,  embarked  in  the  same 
vessel  of  state  with  him,  who  braved  the  dangers 
of  w^ar  in  defence  of  their  common  country,  and 
on  whom,  in  case  of  future  wars,  he  must  rely,  ora 
foreigner  w7ho  has  been  and  may  be  again  an  enemy 
—he  who  is  regardless  whether  he  adds  to  the 
wealth,  power,  and  resources  of  his  own  country, 
or  to  those  of  a  foreign  nation — has  yet  to  study 
the  duties  of  a  good  citizen,  and  ought  to  have  no 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  71 

influence  in  the  national  councils.  But  even  on  the 
most  selfish  principles,  this  view  is  wholly  untena¬ 
ble  and  fallacious;  for  it  is  surely  far  better  to  have 
three  markets  than  two. 

Fourth  objection— Abstraction  of  capital  from  agri¬ 
culture  and  commerce . 

It  is  asserted  that  it  is  unsound  policy  to  abstract 
capital  from  commerce  and  agriculture,  and  em¬ 
ploy  it  in  manufactures.27 

This  objection  has  been  reiterated  times  without 
number,  and  has  passed  current  with  too  many  of 
our  citizens,  who  are  disposed  to  believe  that  all 
the  capital  of  the  country  is  fully  and  profitably 
employed.  Nothing  can  be  more  unfounded.  The 
want  of  employment  for  capital  is  manifest  from 
the  prices  of  our  stocks.  This  day  the  three  per 
cents,  are  at  88,  which  is  only  3.40  per  cent.  There 
is  not  a  person  who  frequents  any  exchange  in  the 
United  States,  or  who  is  in  the  smallest  degree 
conversant  with  our  commerce,  who,  if  candid,  will 
not  acknowledge  that  there  is  not  half  employment 
for  the  mercantile  capital  of  the  country,  notwith¬ 
standing  the  lamentable  diminution  it  has  under¬ 
gone  since  the  war.  And  so  far  as  regards  agricul¬ 
ture,  the  case  is  equally  striking.  Our  population 
engaged  in  that  pursuit,  was  at  the  last  census 
8,022,319 — and  is  now  about  8,500,000,  of  whom 

27  Among  the  evils  with  which  the  nation  has  been  threat¬ 
ened,  in  the  event  of  any  modification  of  the  tariff,  that 
of  “ forcing  capital ”  from  agriculture  and  commerce  to 
manufactures,  was  strenuously  insisted  on.  The  Charles¬ 
ton  memorial  <c  deprecates  so  violent  a  diversion  of  capi- 

tal  and  industry  from  the  channels  in  which  they  would 
“  naturally  flow,  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  them  into 
“  others  in  which  their  operations  would  be  more  embar- 
“  rassed  and  less  efficient.” 


72  Address  delivered  before  the 

about  550,000,  but  say  650,000,  are  engaged  in  the 
culture  of  cotton.  The  surplus  exports  of  the  re¬ 
maining  7,850,000,  during  the  last  year,  were  only 
22,200,119  dollars,  or  at  the  rate  of  about  282  cents 
per  head.  No  man,  surely,  will  pretend  that  such 
a  pitiful  surplus  as  this,  together  with  the  consump¬ 
tion  of  the  agriculturists,  and  the  supply  of  2,000,- 
000  of  their  fellow  citizens,  can  find  employment  for 
the  agricultural  capital  of  the  country,  which,  if  we 
had  free  access  to  the  markets  of  Europe,  could  pro¬ 
duce  a  surplus  of  from  75  to  100,000,000  dollars  per 
annum.  I  have  already  shown,  that  in  the  year  1796, 
our  surplus  agricultural  exports  amounted  to  above 
eight  dollars  per  head  of  our  entire  population. 

Fifth  Objection — To  impose  duties  for  the  protection 
of  manufactures  is  unconstitutional . 

That  the  power  of  imposing  duties  is  by  the  con¬ 
stitution  limited  to  the  object  of  raising  revenue, 
and  that  therefore  to  impose  them  for  the  protec¬ 
tion  of  manufactures  is  unconstitutional,  has  been 
asserted,  with  great  confidence,  by  leading  mem¬ 
bers  of  congress— and  more  particularly  by  some 
from  Virginia.  The  late  Colonel  Taylor,  the  pa¬ 
triarch  of  this  school  of  politicians,  went  the  length 
of  declaring  that  a  duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  §40,- 
000,000  of  manufactures,  is  §  10,000,000  robbed 
from  the  pockets  of  the  agriculturists ! 

It  is  difficult  to  discuss  such  assertions  seriously, 
as  they  are  in  direct  hostility  with  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  government  from  the  time  of  its  or¬ 
ganization  to  the  present  hour. 

The  first  congress,  comprising  a  considerable 
proportion  of  the  members  of  the  federal  conven¬ 
tion  by  which  the  constitution  had  been  recently 
framed,  must  of  course  have  been  thoroughly  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  intent  and  meaning  of  its  provi- 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  73 

sions.  The  act  which  imposed  the  duties  on  imports 
was  the  second  passed  by  that  congress,  and  dis¬ 
tinctly  recognizes  the  principle  of  protecting  du¬ 
ties.  The  preamble  is  in  these  words,  44  Whereas  it 
“  is  necessary  for  the  support  of  government — for 
44  the  discharge  of  the  debts  of  the  United  States, 
44  and  for  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  ma - 
44  nufactures,  that  duties  be  laid  on  goods,  wares 
44  and  merchandise.55  It  cannot  be  for  a  moment 
supposed  that  such  a  provision  would  have  been  ad¬ 
mitted  into  this  act,  had  there  been  any  foundation 
for  the  constitutional  objection. 

This  ought  to  be  conclusive,  and  it  is  astonishing 
that  gentlemen  bred  up  to  the  bar,  who  should  be 
well  acquainted  with  the  laws  of  their  country, 
could,  in  the  face  of  this  strong  fact,  commit  them* 
selves  by  such  an  untenable  objection. 

But  this  is  far  from  the  whole  of  the  case.  By 
the  above  act,  duties  amounting  to  from  70  to  90 
per  cent,  were  imposed  on  snuff  and  tobacco,  in¬ 
tended  to  be  prohibitory,  and  operating  as  such,  in 
order  to  secure  the  domestic  consumption  of  tobac¬ 
co  to  the  planters  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  North 
Carolina.  Yet  a  large  portion  of  the  members  for 
those  states  strenuously  maintain  the  constitutional 
objection.  Unless,  however,  they  can  prove  that 
there  is  something  sacred  in  the  character  of  to¬ 
bacco  planters  or  in  tobacco,  which  guarantees  them 
and  it  from  the  operation  of  constitutional  objec¬ 
tions,  which  are  to  be  enforced  against  manufactures 
and  manufacturers,  they  must  abandon  this  ground. 

It  is  almost  superfluous  to  adduce  any  further 
facts  on  so  plain  a  case.  But  I  shq.Il  trespass  with 
one  more.  The  act  above  referred  to,  imposed,  for 
the  protection  of  merchants  concerned  in  naviga¬ 
tion,  duties  on  teas  imported  in  foreign  vessels, 
which  averaged  27  cents  per  lb.  whereas  those  im- 


7 4  Mdress  delivered  before  the 

ported  in  American  paid  but  12,  being  a  difference 
of  125  per  cent.  What  becomes  of  the  constitutional 
scruple  here  ? 

Sixth  objection — Danger  of  Smuggling . 

Among  the  objections  to  the  legislative  protec- 
tion  of  manufactures  by  an  increase  of  duties,  the 
danger  of  smuggling  and  the  consequent  demora¬ 
lization  of  our  citizens,  also  held  a  conspicuous 
place.  On  this  subject  the  changes  have  been  rung 
from  north  to  south,  from  east  to  west,  and  the 
most  serious  alarm  been  excited  among  our  citi¬ 
zens,  many  of  whom  are  too  prone  to  receive  confi¬ 
dent  assertions,  as  equivalent  to  absolute  proofs. 
Some  of  the  arguments  of  the  members  of  congress, 
and  many  of  those  of  pamphleteers  and  newspaper 
writers,  were  well  calculated  to  stimulate  our  citi¬ 
zens  to  smuggling — and  in  every  community  there 
are  always  individuals  to  be  found,  who  rejoice  in 
any  plea  furnished  them,  to  justify  illicit  proceed¬ 
ings,  producing  undue  gains.  Who  has  forgotten 
the  incitements  and  statements  of  a  similar  charac¬ 
ter,  during  the  prevalence  of  the  restrictive  system 
and  the  war — and  the  advantage  that  was  taken  by 
the  unprincipled,  of  the  encouragement  thus  offered 
to  them  ? 

In  order  to  judge  correctly  on  this  subject,  it  is 
necessary  to  examine  the  extent  of  the  duties  pro¬ 
posed  by  Mr.  Tod’s  bill,  and  to  compare  them  with 
duties  previously  existing.  I  shall  confine  myself 
to  those  on  iron,  iron  wares,  cottons,  woollens,  cot¬ 
ton  bagging,  linens,  and  silks,  being  the  principal 
articles,  ail  the  rest  being  comparatively  unimpor¬ 
tant. 

The  duties  on  ironmongery,  in  general,  would 
have  averaged  about  27  a  SO  per  cent. ;  on  iron  in 
bars  or  bolts  from  Sweden,  which  supplies  two- 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society.  To 

thirds  of  all  we  import,  about  40  per  cent.  From 
their  bulk  there  can  be  but  little  danger  of  smug¬ 
gling  in  those  articles. 

The  only  alteration  proposed  in  the  duties  on 
cotton  goods,  was  on  those  below  35  cents  per 
square  yard.  All  above  that  price  were  to  remain 
as  formerly,  subject  to  25  per  cent.  Those  below 
35  cents  per  square  yard,  were  to  be  rated  at  35 
cents,  and  to  pay  25  per  cent,  on  that  price.  The 
operation  of  this  new  duty  would  be  confined  al¬ 
most  altogether  to  goods  between  25  and  35  cents 
per  square  yard ;  as  the  existing  minimum  square 
yard  duty  excluded  nearly  the  vohole  of  those  below 
the  foriner  price .  It  will  be  readily  admitted  that 
this  slight  alteration  afforded  no  ground  for  the  cla¬ 
mour  on  the  subject  of  smuggling. 

The  additional  duty  on  woollen  goods,  except 
those  worthless,  low-priced  articles,  which  it  was 
proposed  to  exclude  altogether,  was  only  five  per 
cent. 

Of  the  woollen  goods  intended  to  be  thus  exclud¬ 
ed  by  the  minimum  square  yard  duty,  Mr.  Foot,  of 
Connecticut,  gave  the  following  accurate  descrip¬ 
tion  to  congress. 

“  During  the  last  four  years,  manufactures  have  felt  the 
(t  evils  of  the  system,  under  which  agriculture  and  com- 
“merce  had  suffered  for  three  years,  under  the  accumu- 
“  lated  pressure  of  hard  times,  and  the  burdens  imposed 
“  on  them,  to  sustain  the  manufacturing  interest — but  still 
“more  by  the  influx  of  foreign  goods  forced  through 
<c  your  auctions  .Yes,  sir,  by  the  importations  of  fabrics 
“  of  a  very  inferior  quality — W  OOLLEN  GOODS  MANU¬ 
FACTURED  LIKE  SHEATHING  PAPER,  neither  spun 
“  nor  wove,  but  merely  pasted  together,  the  remnants  of  old 
“  garments ,  picked  up  and  manufactured  with  as  little  ex - 
“  pense  as  paper,  and  through  the  medium  of  your  auctions 
“  brought  into  competition  with  your  manufactures,  subject  to 
“no  charges,  except,  perhaps,  a  small  ad  valorem  duty,  and 
“  one  fourth  of  one  per  cent,  commission  to  the  auctioneer .  In 


76 


Address  delivered  before  the 

“  this  way  the  foreign  manufacturer  has  been  enabled  to  com- 
“ pete  i with  your  American  manufacturers — and  ALMOST 
“  ENTIRELY  TO  DESTROY  THE  MANUFACTURE 
“OF  COARSE  WOOLLEN  GOODS.” 

How  far  those  members,  whose  votes  prevented  the 
exclusion  of  this  miserable  trash,  consulted  the  na¬ 
tional  interests,  I  leave  to  the  world  to  decide.  Let 
it  be  observed,  that  Mr.  Foot  voted  against  the 
tariff. 

The  duty  on  cotton  bagging,  at  six  cents  per  run¬ 
ning  yard,  would  be  about  38  per  cent.  The  addi¬ 
tional  duty  of  three  cents  per  yard,  to  countervail 
the  British  bounty,  would  raise  it  to  about  57  per 
cent. 

The  increase  of  duties  on  linens  and  East  India 
silks,  was  ten  per  cent,  both  recommended  by  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury,  and  the  latter  by  the  cham¬ 
ber  of  commerce  of  New  York. 

Such  are  the  duties  generally,  which  were  to  en¬ 
tail  on  the  country  a  system  of  smuggling  with  all 
its  demoralization  ! ! 

To  a  person  unacquainted  with  the  nature  of  the 
case,  it  would  appear,  that  our  government,  im¬ 
pressed  with  a  horror  of  the  dangers  of  smuggling, 
had  cautiously  avoided  high  duties  throughout  its 
career— and  that  there  was  no  duty  in  the  former 
-  tariff  so  high  as  those  proposed  in  the  new  one.  For 
he  would  naturally  conclude,  that  it  would  be  mon¬ 
strous  inconsistency,  to  raise  such  a  clamour  against 
the  imposition  of  duties,  only  equal  to  those  which 
had  been  in  force  for  15,  20,  or  30  years.  But  what 
would  be  his  amazement  to  learn,  that,  with  the 
exception  of  cottons  between  25  and  35  cents  per 
square  yard,  (those  below  25  cents  per  square  yard, 
I  repeat,  were  already  nearly  excluded  by  the  existing 
minimum  square  yard  duty,)  cotton  bagging;  coarse 
woollens,  which,  on  every  principle  of  justice  and 


Philadelphia  Jlgricidlicral  Society .  77 

propriety,  ought  to  be  excluded  ;  and  a  few  other 
articles  of  little  value ;  scarcely  any  of  the  duties 
were  one-third,  and  none  of  them  nearly  one-half  so 
high  as  those  imposed  on  Souchong  tea,  which  pays  a 
duty  of  150  per  cent.?  At  such  information  he 
would  be  petrified  with  astonishment — and  say, 
what  has  been  said  one  hundred  times  before,  that 
men  in  public  bodies,  will,  without  hesitation,  do 
things  of  which  in  their  individual  capacities  they 
would  be  ashamed. 

Coarse  brown  sugar,  bohea  tea,  and  salt,  neces¬ 
saries  of  life,  the  two  first  used  almost  wholly  by 
the  poor,  are  subject  to  duties  respectively,  100, 
120,  and  180  per  cent.  The  duty  on  pepper  is  50 
per  cent. — on  wines  from  75  to  100 — -and  on  spi¬ 
rits,  from  150  to  200.  With  such  duties  staring  us 
in  the  face,  is  it  not,  if  possible,  worse  than  “  strain¬ 
ing  at  gnats  and  swallowing  camels,”  to  66  make  the 
welkin  ring”  with  fearful  outcries  against  the  dan¬ 
ger  of  smuggling  from  duties  25,  30,  35,  or  40  per 
cent. — on  cottons,  woollens,  iron,  and  iron  ware  ? 
But  it  must  not  be  disguised,  and  cannot  be  denied, 
that  the  policy  of  our  government  from  its  organi¬ 
zation  to  the  present  time,  has  been  so  far  unfriend¬ 
ly  to  the  manufacturers,  that  our  duties  have  been 
almost  uniformly  exorbitant  on  those  articles  not  in¬ 
terfering  with  them,  and,  with  some  exceptions,  so 
light  on  manufactures,  as  to  encourage  importation, 
to  the  ruin,  from  time  to  time,  of  the  hopes  of  many 
hundreds  of  our  valuable  citizens. 

While  I  am  on  this  subject  of  high  duties,  I -can¬ 
not  refrain  from  noticing  the  deep  solicitude  in  favour 
of  the  poor,  expressed  by  some  of  the  members  of  con¬ 
gress,  so  far  as  regards  the  duties  on  coarse  cottons 
and  woollens,  used  chiefly  by  this  class.  Had  these 
humane  feelings  led  to  consistency  of  conduct,  and 
to  a  humane  reduction  of  the  duties  on  bohea  tea, 
a  2 


T 8  Address  delivered  before  the 

coarse  brown  sugar-  and  salt,  they  would  be  enti¬ 
tled  to  honour  and  applause.  But  lo  and  behold, 
the  duties  on  bohea  tea  and  salt  were  passed  over 
without  the  slightest  notice !  and  a  motion  to  re¬ 
duce  the  duty  on  brown  sugar  to  two  cents  per  lb. 
(equal  to  about  66  per  cent,  on  the  coarsest  quali¬ 
ties,)  was  66  negatived'5 — and  “  without  a  divi¬ 
sion  ! ! !  I55  Thus  the  poor  cotton  weaver  pays  100 
per  cent,  on  a  bulky  necessary  of  life,  subject  pro¬ 
bably  to  30  per  cent,  freight,  for  the  protection  of 
the  wealthy  sugar  planter,  while  he  is  refused  a  pro¬ 
tection  of  35  per  cent  on  a  light  fabric,  subject  to 
about  2  per  cent,  freight! !  !2S 

Seventh  Objection— The  danger  of  provoking  the 
wrath  of  Great  Britain ,  so  as  to  induce-  her  to  en¬ 
courage  the  culture  of  cotton  in  the  Brazils ,  in 
other  parts  of  South  America,  and  in  Egypt,  and 
of  tobacco  in  the  Crimea . 

Of  all  the  objections  to  the  protection  of  the  ma¬ 
nufactures  of  the  country,  this  is  the  most  extraor¬ 
dinary  and  indefensible.  It  is  an  insult  to  the  go¬ 
vernment  of  Great  Britain  as  well  as  to  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  this  country. 

It  is  an  insult  to  the  British  government  to  ac  ¬ 
cuse  it  of  such  impertinence  and  folly,  as  to  attempt 


28  The  annals  of  the  civilized  world  cannot  produce  a 
more  oppressive  or  partial  tariff,  than  that  of  the  United 
States,  enacted  in  1816.  It  is  discreditable  to  the  age 
and  the  nation.  Luxuries  and  conveniences,  the  former 
used  wholly  and  the  latter  chiefly  by  the  wealthy,  were 
admitted  at  low  rates  of  duty — and,  I  repeat,  necessaries 
of  life,  some  of  them  used  wholly  by  the  poor,  were  sub¬ 
ject  to  exorbitant  duties.  Nothing  short  of  a  synopsis  of 
some  of  its  leading  features,  could  satisfy  the  reader  that 
such  an  odious  system  could  have  been  adopted  in  the 
nineteenth  century. 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  79 

to  intimidate  our  government  from  making  such  in¬ 
ternal  regulations  as  it  may  judge  proper,  to  pro- 

Tariff  of  1816. 
per  cent, 

Bohea  tea  paid  12 cents 
per  lb.  equal  to  - 
Souchong1  tea  25  cents, 
equal  to  - 

Coarse  brown  sugar,  3  > 

cents  per  lb.  equal  to  100  > 

Salt  20  cts.  per  bushel,  ^ 

equal  to  .  -  180  < 

Molasses,  5  cents  per  l 

gallon,  equal  to  -  42  ] 

I 

t 


120  \ 


150  < 


100  dollars  worth  of 

salt  paid  -  $  180  i 

120  dollars  worth  of  i 

souchong  tea  -  180  ^ 

150  dollars  worth  of  bo-  < 

hea  tea  -  -  180  ; 

180  dollars  worth  of  £ 

coarse  brown  sugar  180  | 

550  dollars  paid  duties  $  720  \ 


per  cent 

Laces,  lace  veils,  pearls, 
and  diamonds,  jewel¬ 
ry,  and  all  articles 
wholly  or  chiefly  of 
gold  or  silver,  paid 
Watches,  clocks,  time¬ 
pieces,  tartan  plaids, 
bombazets,  damask 
table  cloths,  silks,  sat- 
tins,  Canton  crapes, 
chambray  gauzes,  &c. 
Plated  ware,  china,  cut¬ 
lery,  girandoles,  lus- 
$  tres,  &c. 

$  Superfine  broad  cloths, 

*  kerseymeres,  chint- 

*  zes,  calicoes,  Cash- 

J  mere  and  merino 

*  shawls,  Brussels  and 

\  other  carpets 

Operation  of  these  duties. 


It 


15 


20 


25 


1200  dollars  worth  of 
silks,  sattins,  and 
Canton  crapes, 
paid  $  180 

1200  dollars  worth  of 
china,  girandoles, 
lustres,  and  plat¬ 
ed  ware  -  240 

1200  dollars  worth  of 
superfine  cloth, 
merino  and  Cash- 
mere  shawls, 

chintzes,  &c.  300 


i 

i. 

%  3600  dollars  pd.  duties  1720 
Thus  550  dollars  worth  of  tea,  sugar,  and  salt,  paid  as 


80  Address  delivered  before  the 

mote  the  national  interest.  And  it  is  surely  a  gross 
insult  to  our  government,  to  suppose  that  it  could 
be  deterred  by  Such  threats,  if  they  were  fulminated. 
It  would  be  ludicrous,  were  not  the  subject  too  se¬ 
rious  for  ridicule,  to  consider  the  delusion  that 
prevails  on  this  subject,  and  the  means  used  to  ex¬ 
cite  alarm  on  this  subject.29 


much  duty  as  3600  dollars  worth  of  silks,  sattins,  Canton 
crapes,  plated  ware,  china,  girandoles,  broad  cloths,  Cash- 
mere  and  Merino  shawls,  &c.  &c.  To  the  reader’s  good 
sense  I  put  the  question,  whether  such  an  odious  tariff,  by 
which  the  poor  were  oppressed,  and  the  rich  highly  favour¬ 
ed,  does  not  savour  more  of  Venetian  aristocracy,  than  of 
a  representative  government, in  which  the  elective  franchise 
is  more  generally  extended  among  the  poorer  classes  of 
society  than  in  any  other  country  in  the  world  ?  Yet  this 
is  the  tariff,  every  alteration  of  which  has  been  resisted 
with  as  much  zeal  and  ardour,  as  if  the  independence  of 
the  country  were  at  stake. 

Some  trifling  alterations  were  made,  during  the  last 
session,  in  the  tariff  of  1816,  which  increased  the  duties 
on  plated  ware,  laces,  European  silks  and  sattins,  and 
some  other  articles  of  luxury,  5  per  cent.  But  even  now 
100  dollars  worth  of  salt,  or  180  dollars  worth  of  the 
coarsest  brown  sugar,  pays  as  much  duty  as  900  dollars 
worth  of  European  silks,  or  as  600  dollars  worth  of  super¬ 
fine  broad  cloth,  Merino  or  Cashmere  shawls,  chintzes, 
Brussels  carpets,  &c. 

29  The  following  paragraph,  which  is  going  the  rounds 
of  all  the  anti-tariff  papers^n  the  union,  is  predicated  on 
the  idea  that  the  pacha  of  Egypt  has  undertaken  to  avenge 
the  cause  of  the  British  manufacturers,  for  the  presump¬ 
tion  of  congress  in  daring  to  alter  the  trriff — and  that  he 
must  have  known  in  1822,  that  such  an  alteration  would 
take  place  : — 

‘‘Letters  from  Egypt  mention,  that  the  Pacha  will  raise 
“  50,000  bales  of  cotton  this  year.  A  London  paper  re- 
“  marks,  all  this  must  come  to  that  country  in  British  bot¬ 
toms,  and  consequently  wili  not  only  be  so  much  sub- 
<f  tracted  from  American  growth,  but  a  large  proportion 


81 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society . 

No  nation  ever  carried  on  a  more  advantageous 
trade  with  another  than  Great  Britain  does  with  us. 
She  derives  more  benefit  from  our  commerce  than 
Spain  has  ever  done  from  her  colonies,  rich  as  they 
are  in  gold  and  silver  mines.  More  than  nine- 
tenths  of  ail  that  Great  Britain  receives  from  us  are 
raw  materials,  for  the  employment  of  her  subjects. 
Notwithstanding  her  immense  possessions  in  the 
East  and  West  Indies,  which  she  supplies  exclu¬ 
sively  with  her  manufactures  ;  and  notwithstanding 
also  her  extensive  commerce  with  the  continent  of 
Europe,  and  with  South  America ;  our  purchases 
are  about  a  sixth  part  of  her  domestic  exports, 
which,  in  1822,  were  40,194,000/.  or  g  180,873,000, 
of  which  we  received  g  32,914,971.  Almost  every 
article  we  receive  from  her  is  elaborated  to  the 
highest  degree  of  perfection,  labour  constituting  on 
the  average  probably  two-thirds  or  three-fourths  of 
the  whole  amount.  Some  idea  may  be  formed  of 
the  nature  of  her  trade,  by  the  fact,  that  the  raw  ma¬ 
terial  of  the  cotton  manufacture  costs  her  but  about 
5,000,000/.  or  §  22,500,000— whereas  the  proceeds 
of  the  manufacture  last  year  were  g  243,000,000. 
Can  we  wonder,  after  due  reflexion  on  these  cir¬ 
cumstances,  at  the  inordinate  and  increasing  wealth 
of  Great  Britain  and  the  general  depression  through¬ 
out  the  United  States? 

The  following  table  will  evince  the  lucrative  na¬ 
ture  of  the  trade  she  carries  on  with  us. 

“  of  freight  deducted  from  American  tonnage.  Such  are 
“  some  of  the  consequences  already  resulting  from  the  American 
“tariff!!!  The  celebrated  offensive  and  defensive  treaty 
<f  of  Catharine  with  the  Northern  powers,  first  gave  im¬ 
portance  to  the  iron  manufactures  of  England,  and  we 
“  shall  not  be  surprised  if  the  American  tariff,  should  it  Ire 
“  persisted  in,  make  the  Mahometans  the  most  extensive  growers 
6i  of  tobacco  and  cotton .” 


82  Address  delivered  before  the 


Imports  into  the 


1821 

1822 

1823 


United  States  from,  and  Exports  to ,  Great 
Britain,  for  three  years . 

Imports.  Exports. 

-  $  24,400,954  -  $18,883,834 

32,914,971  -  22,871,795 

23,031,440  -  21,115,258 


Total  -  -  $80,347,365  -  ,  $62,870,887 

From  the  enormous  losses  on  cotton,  sustained 
in  1821  and  1822,  it  is  higljyijpnibable  that  the 
amount  of  our  exports,  instead  of  g  62,870,687, 
was  not  more  than  g  57,000,000,  leaving  a  balance 
against  us  of  g  23,000,000.  Great  Britain  holds, 
moreover,  above  a  fifth  part  of  our  national  debt, 
and  millions  of  canal  and  other  stocks,  from  which 
she  derives  at  least  g  2,500,000  per  annum.30 

Let  us  examine  this  subject  a  little  more  nar¬ 
rowly.  Great  Britain,  as  already  stated,  prohibits 
altogether  our  breadstuff's  unless  in  danger  of  fa¬ 
mine— and  even  then  subjects  them  to  considerable 
duties.  On  the  few  articles  she  condescends  to  re¬ 
ceive  from  us,  the  duties  are  very  high — 


1 

Prices  in 
New  York 
July  7, 
1824. 

Duty. 

British 

Sterling. 

Duty 
per  ct. 

Ashes,  per  cwt. 
Rice,  per  cwt. 

Bbl.  staves  per  M. 
Pipe  staves  per  M. 
Hhd.  staves  per  M. 
Tobacco,  per  lb. 

$  6.00 
$  3.75 
$  24.00 
$  50.00 
$  36.00 

4  to  8  cts. 

£  0112*  =  $  2.48 
£  015  0  =  $  3.33 
£  3  16  8  =$16.33 
£  10  00  0  =  $  44.44 
£  7 13  4  =$32.06 
£  4  =$00.88 

40 

88 

68 

90 

88 

1480 

30  «  xhe  New  York  canal  from  Buffalo,  on  Lake  Erie,  to 
“  Albany,  according*  to  statements  recently  laid  before 
“the  New  York  legislature,  will  cost  7,597,271  dollars. 
“  The  far  greater  part  of  the  stock  is  held  by  British  capi- 
“  talists  .” — Colonial  Register  and  West  India  Journal,  May 
1824,  page  58. 

*  This  article,  from  Canada,  pays  only  Is.  8 d. 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  83 

Here  is  a  curious  state  of  things.  Great  Britain 
may  and  does  prohibit  the  staple  on  which  half  our 
population  depend — she  may  and  does  impose  du¬ 
ties  of  40,  68,  88,  90,  and  1480  per  cent,  on  such 
of  our  productions  as  she  receives — and  yet,  Ame¬ 
rican  citizens,  representing  the  United  States  in 
the  national  legislature,  are  not  ashamed  to  threat¬ 
en  their  country  with  the  resentment  of  Great  Bri¬ 
tain,  if  she  dare — what?  not  retaliate  prohibition 
by  prohibition— what  then?  merely  impose  duties 
on  British  manufactures,  in  common  with  the  ma¬ 
nufactures  of  all  other  nations,  from  25  to  50  per 
cent. — the  great  mass  of  which  are  at  or  below  30 
per  cent. ! ! !  On  this  subject  comment  is  wholly  un¬ 
necessary. 

The  cultivation  of  cotton,  do  what  we  may,  will 
advance  with  great  rapidity,  and  overrun  consump¬ 
tion,  although  the  latter  is  increasing.  Low  as  the 
price  is,  it  pays  better  at  present  than  most  other 
agricultural  productions — and  always  commands 
cash.  Peru,  Chili,  Buenos  Ayres,  the  Colombian 
republic,  and  Egypt  are  entering  the  lists  with  our 
planters,  and  will  prove  formidable  competitors. 
Great  Britain  affords  the  largest  market  and  the 
surest  money  sales  in  the  wrorld;  and  therefore, 
without  any  effort  on  the  part  of  her  government 
the  article  will  seek  that  quarter,  which  will  be  con¬ 
stantly  glutted,  and  the  prices  as  constantly  de¬ 
pressed.  Our  system  absurdly  and  perniciously  aids 
the  depression  by  forcing  our  farmers  to  become 
cotton  planters,  and  thus  increasing  the  production. 
The  case  of  tobacco,  except  the  very  fine  qualities, 
is  still  more  unpromising.  The  consumption  does 
not  materially  increase — but  the  production  is  ex¬ 
tending  far  and  wide.  Canada  has  become  a  com¬ 
petitor. 


84  Address  delivered  before  the 

How  immensely  different  the  conduct  of  the  Bri¬ 
tish  government  from  that  of  the  United  States ! 
With  what  unceasing  and  parental  solicitude  it 
watches  over  the  interests  and  protects  the  indus¬ 
try  of  its  subjects  !  It  shuts  out  every  thing  which 
could  interfere  with  either.  Of  this  we  have  a  most 
striking  case  at  the  present  hour,  as  regards  its 
agricultural  population.  The  importation  of  foreign 
breadstuff's  for  consumption  in  Great  Britain  is  pro¬ 
hibited  until  the  prices  average  as  follows: 

Wheat  per  quarter  70s.  and  rye,  46s. 

Exclusive  of  large  quantities  of  flour,  there  are 
now  stored  under  bond  in  Great  Britain,  640,000 
bushels  of  wheat,  a  considerable  part  of  which  has 
lain  there  for  above  a  year — not  one  grain  of  which 
will  be  allowed  to  be  consumed  in  the  British  do¬ 
minions.  The  average  of  the  six  weeks  immediately 
preceding  the  15th  of- May,  was  64s.  7d.  per  quar¬ 
ter,  or  8s.  id.  equal  to  8  1.78-|  cents  per  bushel. 
Wheat  in  our  markets  is  about  8  1.05  to  8  1.15 ; 
so  that  had  wre  the  privilege  of  supplying  the  Bri¬ 
tish  markets,  it  would  make  a  difference  in  favour 
of  the  consumer,  of  about  30  to  35  per  cent. :  and, 
according  to  the  principle  of  buying' where  produce 
or  manufactures  can  be  had  cheapest,  Great  Bri¬ 
tain  ought  to  allow  us  to  feed  some  of  those  ma¬ 
nufacturers  who  labour  for  us.  But  she  scouts  this 
policy,  and  extends  the  segis  of  legislative  pro¬ 
tection  to  the  agriculturist  equally  with  the  manu¬ 
facturer. 

Let  it  be  carefully  noted,  that  even  when  the 
price  of  wheat  rises  to  70s.  or  8  15.33  per  quarter, 
and  when  the  importation  of  our  wheat  is  permit¬ 
ted,  it  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  17s.  per  quarter  for 
the  first  three  months,  and  12s.  afterwards. 

A  fact  respecting  the  British  corn  laws,  which 
sheds  strong  light  on  this  subject,  and  reflects  the 


85 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society. 

highest  credit  on  the  policy  of  Great  Britain,  de¬ 
serves  particular  attention.  Formerly  the  minimum 
average  price  of  wheat  for  six  weeks,  at  which  the 
importation  of  foreign  wheat  for  domestic  con¬ 
sumption  was  allowed,  was  80s.  per  quarter.  From 
the  appearance  of  the  harvest  in  1817,  there  was 
every  reason  to  believe  that  the  price  would  over¬ 
run  this  average,  and  of  course  that  the  ports  would 
be  opened.  This  idea  was  distinctly  held  out  by 
the  Liverpool  merchants.  Accordingly  great  expor¬ 
tations  took  place  from  hence  to  Great  Britain.  Con¬ 
trary,  however,  to  ail  calculation,  the  average  was 
only  79s.  7d.  In  consequence,  the  ports  were  clos¬ 
ed — a  large  portion  of  the  shippers  ruined — and 
the  prospects  of  our  farmers  blighted.  So  critically 
nice  the  calculations — so  parental  the  care  of  the 
British  government  over  the  welfare  of  its  subjects  ! 
When  shall  we  see  the  same  anxiety,  the  same  so¬ 
licitude,  the  same  fostering  care  displayed  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States  ! 

In  placing  before  you,  fellow  citizens,  these  im¬ 
portant  features  of  British  policy,  so  profound  and 
so  creditable  to  her  statesmen,  and  so  certain  a 
means  of  promoting  national  wealth,  I  have  two 
objects  in  view.  One,  to  show  the  striking  con¬ 
trast  between  the  system  of  Great  Britain  and  that 
of  the  United  States;  the  other,  to  prove  what  erro¬ 
neous  opinions  have  been  broached,  in  and  out  of 
Congress,  on  the  subject  of 46  cutting  the  cords  that 
tie  down  commerce  to  the  earth.” 

Four  years  have  elapsed,  since  a  public  do¬ 
cument,  presented  to  Congress,  very  confidently 
stated,  that 

“  The  statesmen  of  the  old  -world ,  in  admiration  of  the  sue - 
“  cess  of  our  policy  !  are  relaxing  the  rigour  of  their  o-wn  sys - 
“  terns!  and  yielding  themselves  to  the  rational  doctrine, 
“that  national  wealth  is  best  promoted  by  a  free  inter - 

M 


8t>  Address  delivered  before  the 

“ change  of  commodities,  upon  principles  of  perfect  recipro - 
“  city!” 

The  idea  here  held  out,  has  been  re-echoed  in 
newspapers  and  pamphlets,  and  speeches  in  Con¬ 
gress,  and  by  orators  out  of  Congress,  one  hundred 
times.  We  are  assured,  and  by  citizens  of  the 
highest  respectability,  that  Great  Britain  is  repeal¬ 
ing  her  restrictive  system  as  fast  and  as  far  as  prac¬ 
ticable — and  that  if  we  enact  such  a  system,  we 
shall  disgracefully  adopt  the  discarded  and  repro¬ 
bated  policy  of  Europe. 

Now,  however  extraordinary  it  may  appear,  it  is 
indubitably  true,  that  these  assertions  are  entirely 
destitute  of  foundation.  No  such  measures  have 
been  adopted.  I  do  not  accuse  the  gentlemen  in 
question  of  wilful  errors,  I  feel  confident  they 
believe  what  they  state.  But  their  belief  does 
not  at  all  affect  the  question.  They  are  called 
upon  to  disprove,  by  substantial  facts,  the  follow¬ 
ing  averment — that  so  far  as  regards  the  internal 
cmisumption  of  foreign  produce ,  ( raw  materials 
excepted ,)  or  foreign  manufactures ,  no  relaxation 
whatever  worth  7iotice  has  taken  jdace  in  Great 
Britain  within  the  last  ten  years .  If  they  do  not 
thus  disprove  it,  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  proof  that 
it  is  destitute  of  foundation.  I  need  not  add  that 
this  is  all  that  concerns  the  question  of  the  tariff. 
The  relaxation  of  her  colonial  system,  and  of  her 
navigation  laws,  belongs  to  a  totally  different  subject. 

In  a  preceding  part  of  this  address,  I  have  stated 
the  high  duties  on  the  chief  articles  received  from 
this  country  in  Great  Britain.  I  now  annex  a  list 
of  the  duties  that  are  actually  in  force  on  other 
articles-— duties  enacted  so  late  as  1819. 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society.  ST 

Per  cent.  £  Per  cent. 

Glass  bottles  and  glass  5  Skins  or  furs  in  any 

manufactures,  gene-  >  way  dressed  -  75 

rally  -  -  -  80  %  Linen,  not  chequered 

Chinaware  -  -  75  |  or  striped  63 

Cotton  manufactures  75  J  Linen  sails  -  -  104! 

Earthenware  -  -  75  S  LiSten,  chequered,  stri- 

Hides  -  -  -  75  |  ped,  or  printed  172! 

Leather,  or  manufac-  j  Pasteboards,  per  hun- 
tures  whereof  lea-  i  dred  weight  31^3.8.6! 

~  tlier  is  the  princi-  \ 
pal  part  -  -  75  ^ 

Fifty  or  sixty  enumerated,  and  all  non-enumerated,  arti¬ 
cles,  fifty  per  cent.  J  !  ! 

How  can  gentlemen,  with  these  facts  before 
them — facts  of  public  notoriety — how  can  they, 
l  say,  descant  on  the  “free  interchange  of  commo- 
“  dities  upon  the  principles  of  perfect  reciprocity” 
and  on  the  discarding  of  the  restrictions  of  Great 
Britain  ?  Where  are  we  to  look  for  the  “  recipro¬ 
city ”  here? 

But  these  examples  were  unnecessary  for  the 
disproof  of  the  assertions  thus  confidently  made? 
The  case  of  the  exclusion  of  our  breadstuffs,  on 
which  I  have  already  fully  dilated,  would  be  suffi¬ 
cient  to  set  this  question  at  rest  for  ever.  Great 
Britain  never  imported  in  any  one  year  as  much 
flour  as  would  supply  her  population  for  three 
weeks.  Consequently  the  whole  amount  she  could 
receive  from  us,  were  her  ports  unlimitedly  open 
to  our  breadstuffs,  would  be  unimportant,  and 
could  not  materially  affect  her  agriculturists.  And 
if  she  were  disposed  to  admit -“a  free  exchange  of 
commodities  upon  principles  of  perfect  reciprocity 
this  would  be  a  favourable  opportunity  of  making  a 
commencement. 

31  Pasteboard,  thus  subject  to  a  duty  of  above  $15  per 
cwt.  is  sold  in  this  city  for  $4.50  per  cwt. 


88 


Address  delivered  before  the 

She  is,  I  admit,  about  to  change  her  system  wifch- 
respect  to  the  silk  manufacture.  But  the  change 
does  not  bear  out  our  citizens  in  the  statements 
which  I  have  quoted.  By  absolute  prohibitions  of 
silk  goods  of  all  descriptions,  she  has  brought  the 
manufacture  to  such  complete  perfection,  as  to  be 
enabled  to  compete  with  the  French  and  Italians 
in  their  own  markets.  She  therefore  no  longer 
requires  prohibitions,  which  are  to  be  repealed, 
but  not  until  the  year  1826 — so  cautious  is  she  to 
guard  the  industry  of  her  citizens  from  foreign 
competition.  And  even  when  the  prohibition  is 
abrogated,  the  duties  are  to  be  nearly  prohibitory- 
plain  silk  goods  are  to  pay  g  £.88 — and  figured 
g  4.44  per  lb.  All  other  silk  goods  and  silk  shoes 
are  to  pay  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Such  is  the 
extent  to  which  she  “  cuts  the  cords  which  tie  com¬ 
merce  to  the  earth,”  so  far  as  regards  this  species 
of  goods,  the  only  kind  that  has  been  as  yet  brought 
into  consideration.  And  to  afford  adequate  com¬ 
pensation  to  the  manufacturers  of  silk  goods,  she 
has  reduced  the  duties  as  follows.  Raw  silk  from 
the  East  Indies  in  future,  instead  of  4s.  per  lb.  is 
to  pay  only  2d;  from  China  and  Italy,  instead  of 
5s.  6d.  to  pay  6d.;  and  from  the  Brazils,  instead  of 
14s.  to  pay  7s.  6d. 

Friends  and  Fellow  Citizens , 

The  subject  I  undertook  to  discuss  is  almost  in¬ 
exhaustible,  and  is  but  slightly  broached  in  this  ad¬ 
dress.  But  it  is,  I  feel,  time  to  draw  to  a  close.  I 
had  written  much  more ;  but  fearing  to  trespass  on 
your  patience,  I  omit  the  residue,  and  here  con¬ 
clude,  hoping  that  I  have  proved,  that  the  policy 
pursued  by  this  government  has  the  most  withering 
influence  on  the  prosperity  of  the  country — that 
there  is  an  identity  of  interests  between  the  two 


Philadelphia  Agricultural  Society .  89 

great  branches  of  human  industry,  the  creation  of 
the  rude  produce  of  the  soil,  and  the  moulding  and 
fashioning  that  produce  for  the  comfort  and  conve¬ 
nience  of  mankind — that  it  is  impossible  to  depress 
the  latter,  without  inflicting  severe  injury  on  the 
former — and  that  none  but  an  enemy  of  both,  will 
ever  attempt  to  separate  their  interests,  or  to  ex¬ 
cite  jealousy  or  hostility  between  the  great  classes 
devoted  to  those  all-important  objects. 


( End  of  the  address  as  delivered ,) 


(  90  ) 


The  extreme  length  of  the  address ,  as  originally 
written ,  induced  the  speaker  to  omit  the  latter  part 
of  it ,  which ,  in  order  to  render  it  complete ,  and  to 
lay  the  whole  subject  before  the  reader ,  is  here  an - 
nexed  in  the  shape  of  an 

APPENDIX. 


In  every  stage  of  this  investigation,  we  find  a 
striking  contrast  between  our  policy  and  that  of  all 
the  celebrated  statesmen  of  Europe  of  past  and  pre¬ 
sent  times,  the  Edwards,  the  Walsinghams,  the 
Suliys,  the  Colberts,  the  Frederics,  and  those  who 
now  rule  the  destinies  of  Great  Britain,  France, 
and  Russia,  and  are  laying  the  foundations  of  their 
prosperity  on  the  most  solid  basis.  Either  the  whole 
mass  of  them,  were  and  are  utterly  destitute  of  wis¬ 
dom  and  sound  policy,  or  our  system  is  radically 
and  incurably  unsound.  There  is  no  other  alterna¬ 
tive.  Those  statesmen  fostered  and  protected,  and 
these  still  continue  to  foster  and  protect  nascent 
manufactures,  by  bounties,  premiums,  loans,  immu¬ 
nities,  and  prohibitions  of,  or  prohibitory  duties  on, 
rival  articles.  How  different  the  conduct  of  our 
government,  and  how  inexpressibly  mortifying  to  an 
American,  and  indelibly  discreditable  to  our  rulers  ! 
Many  of  our  manufactures  have  arisen  to  maturity, 
by  the  native  energy  of  our  citizens,  unaided  by 
bounties,  premiums,  loans,  or,  except  in  the  case  of 
coarse  cottons,  and  two  or  three  other  articles,  by 
prohibitory  duties.  But  alas  !  from  time  to  time, 
our  government,  a  republic,  emanating  from,  res¬ 
ponsible  to,  and  paid  by,  the  people,  beholds  them 
prostrated,  their  proprietors  bankrupted,  and  the 


91 


Appendix. 

national  wealth  impaired,  without  the  least  inter¬ 
ference  in  their  defence  ! !  Every  effort  to  save  them 
from  ruin,  is  combated  with  as  much  zeal  and  ar¬ 
dour,  as  if  it  were  an  attempt  to  rob  the  rest  of  the 
community.  I  shall  produce  but  one  or  two  out  of 
a  score  of  instances.  In  the  depressed  and  ruinous 
state  of  the  woollen  manufacture,  as  already  stated, 
every  motive  of  justice,  humanity,  and  sound  na¬ 
tional  policy,  called  upon  congress  to  afford  this 
important  branch  decisive  and  powerful  protection. 
But  what  has  been  done  for  it  at  the  last  session  ? 
It  is  wholly  unimportant,  and  will  have  scarcely 
any  effect.  After  a  long  struggle,  an  addition  of 
five  per  cent,  was  made  to  the  existing  duty,  for 
one  year,  and  three  per  cent,  more  afterwards !  I 
at  the  same  time,  contrary  to  every  principle  of 
sound  policy,  the  raw  material  was  burdened  with 
an  additional  duty  of  five  per  cent,  and  with  pro¬ 
gressive  duties  from  twenty  to  fifty  per  cent.  !32 

To  this  let  me  add  the  case  of  pottery  and  stone 
ware.  Extensive  manufactories  of  those  articles 
were  established  during  the  war,  and  carried  on 
successfully,  to  the  advantage  of  the  country,  and 
the  emolument  of  the  undertakers.  Produced  from 
a  raw  material  otherwise  almost  entirely  worthless, 
these  manufactures  were  entitled  to  peculiar  pro¬ 
tection — and  their  bulk  was  a  sufficient  guard  against 
smuggling,  the  bugbear  so  constantly  held  out  to 
terrify  the  nation  from  any  increase  of  the  duties 
on  manufactures.  Mr.  Dallas  in  his  proposed  ta¬ 
riff  reported  a  duty  of  30  per  cent,  which  might 
have  saved  from  ruin  this  branch  of  industry,  the 

32  While  our  government  has  burdened  the  raw  material 
of  the  important  but  struggling  woollen  manufacture,  with 
an  immediate  duty  of  20  percent. — and  prospective  duties 
of  25  and  30,  the  Kritish  government  has  wisely  reduced 
the  duty  from  six  pence  to  one  penny  per  lb. 


92  Jlppendix. 

importation  of  the  productions  of  which  costs  the . 
country  about  1,100,000  per  annum.  The  duty 
was  reduced  to  20  per  cent. — and  in  consequence, 
the  manufacture  was  almost  entirely  ruined. 

I  next  proceed  to  consider  the  effects  of  our  po¬ 
licy,  as  regards  immigrants  and  immigration.  Wise 
governments  have  uniformly  encouraged  the  immi¬ 
gration  of  talented  foreigners  into  their  territories, 
as  a  source  of  wealth  and  power.  History  is  re¬ 
plete  with  instances  of  the  immense  advantages 
which  have  been  derived  from  this  system.  The 
wicked  and  impolitic  repeal  of  the  edict  of  Nantes, 
drove  some  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Hugonot  ar¬ 
tists,  manufacturers,  and  mechanics,  from  France, 
to  enjoy  the  precious  and  inalienable  right  of  wor¬ 
shipping  God,  according  to  the  dictates  of  their 
consciences.  They  were  received  with  open  arms 
in  every  part  of  Europe  to  which  they  fled  for  re¬ 
fuge.  They  amply  repaid  the  kindness  and  hospi¬ 
tality  they  experienced,  by  imparting  to  England, 
Holland,  and  Germany,  various  arts  which  had  be¬ 
fore  been  confined  to  France.  They  either  intro¬ 
duced  or  greatly  improved  some  of  those  arts  and 
manufactures,  which  have  since  mainly  contributed 
to  elevate  Great  Britain  to  the  towering  height 
where  she  stands,  the  wonder  and  envy  of  the 
world,  so  far  as  substantial  power  and  resources 
are  concerned — and  recently  the  arbitress  of  its 
destinies. 

If  such  has  been  the  policy,  as  regards  immigra  ¬ 
tion,  with  nations  thickly  peopled — if  such  have 
been  its  salutary  effects — how  much  more  powerful 
the  inducements,  as  applicable  to  the  United  States, 
whose  population  bears  so  small  a  proportion  to  its 
territory  ?  There  is  in  fact  no  country  in  the  world, 
except  perhaps  Russia,  which  is  so  strongly  impel¬ 
led  by  sound  policy,  to  promote  immigration  as  the 
United  States. 


Appendix.  93 

There  is,  moreover,  no  country  in  the  civilized 
world,  which  could  hold  out  such  great  inducements 
to  foreigners  to  emigrate  from  their  own  country — 
none,  which  might  so  readily  be  rendered  what  it 
was  once  styled — “  an  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of 
all  nations55 — none,  after  which  foreigners  yearn 
so  ardently— and  none,  to  which  they  would  more 
readily  transfer  themselves. 

Were  manufactures  adequately  protected,  and 
the  country  prosperous,  as  it  would  be  in  that  case, 
there  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  every  year  would  add 
at  least  30,000  to  our  population,  with  all  their  ta¬ 
lents,  their  wealth,  and  their  industry. 

As  this  number  will  probably  appear  extravagant, 
it  may  be  proper  to  state  the  data  on  which  it  is 
predicated,  which,  I  trust,  will  remove  all  doubt  on 
this  point. 

From  statements  in  the  Weekly  Register,  the 
editor  of  which  is  remarkably  attentive  to  such 
subjects,  it  appears  that  in  the  week  ending  Aug. 
16,  1816,  between  12  and  1500  passengers  arrived 
in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore — and 
in  the  next  week,  ending  August  23,^there  arrived 
1354,  in  23  vessels,  besides  several  in  two  vessels, 
of  which  the  numbers  were  not  stated. 

According  to  Dr.  Seybert,  there  arrived  in  ten 
ports  of  the  United  States,  in  the  year  1817,  no  less 
than  22,240  passengers,  which  number,  however,  in¬ 
cluded  citizens,  as  well  as  foreigners.  The  number  of 
citizens  could  not  have  been  very  considerable ; 
whereas  of  foreigners,  great  numbers,  not  register¬ 
ed,  arrived  by  land  and  otherwise,  from  the  British 
North  American  colonies,  far  more,  in  all  probabi¬ 
lity,  than  the  number  of  citizens  who  were  regis¬ 
tered. 

By  a  return  made  by  the  mayor  of  New  York,  it 
appears,  that,  from  the  2d  of  March,  1818,  till  De- 


94  Appendix. 

cember  11,  1819,  being  little  more  than  21  months, 
there  were  entered  at  his  office  18,929  foreign  pas  ¬ 
sengers,  of  whom  16,093  were  British  subjects.  On 
close  attention  to  the  subject,  he  declared  his  con¬ 
viction  that  these  were  but  two-thirds  of  those  who 
had  arrived  within  that  time.  According  to  this 
calculation,  the  aggregate  was  about  28,500,  or  at 
the  rate  of  16,000  per  annum.  Supposing  that 
only  an  equal  number  arrived  in  all  the  other  ports, 
it  would  make  the  number  32,000.  But  let  it  be 
observed,  that,  according  to  Dr.  Seybert’s  state¬ 
ment,  above  quoted,  the  number  who  arrived  in 
New  York  in  1817,  was  only  one-third  of  the  whole. 
According  to  which  rate,  1  might  assume  48,000 
per  annum  in  1818  and  1819. 

Ten  thousand  immigrants  lately  arrived  in  Up¬ 
per  Canada  in  one  season — of  whom  very  probably, 
four-fifths  would  have  come  to  the  United  States, 
had  they  had  a  prospect  of  advantageous  employ¬ 
ment. 

These  data  will  certainly  bear  me  out  ill  the  as¬ 
sumption  of  30,000  per  annum. 

The  number  has  been  reduced  of  late  very  low ; 
because  thousands  who  arrived  in  this  country,  at 
a  great  sacrifice  of  time  and  money,  found  they 
had  not  bettered  their  situation,  and  that  it  was 
difficult  and  scarcely  possible  for  them  to  procure 
employment  at  their  regular  occupations.  Of  thosq 
thus  disappointed,  such  as  had  means  to  pay  their 
passage,  returned  home,  and  spread  unfavourable 
accounts  of  the  country,  whereby  the  spirit  of  emi¬ 
gration  was  nearly  annihilated.  The  National  Jour¬ 
nal  states  the  number  of  foreign  passengers  in  1823, 
from  official  documents,  at  only  6417,  of  whom  it 
calculates  that  1700  have  returned,  reducing  the 
number  who  remained  to  about  4,700. 

It  is  a  disheartening  truth,  that  in  a  country  ca- 


95 


Appendix. 

pable  of  maintaining  one  hundred  times  its  present 
population,  there  are  too  many  of  almost  every 
class — too  many  farmers — too  many  planters — too 
many  merchants— too  many  lawyers — too  many 
doctors — and  too  many  of  nearly  every  kind  of 
manufacturers  and  mechanics.  Hence  there  is  no 
encouragement  whatever  to  immigration.  This 
arises  from  our  citizens  being  wholly  precluded  by 
foreign  supplies,  from  so  many  branches  of  business 
and  such  various  occupations,  that  all  those  which 
are  not  thus  closed  against  them,  are  crowded. 
There  can  be  no  truth  more  clear  than  this,  that 
the  greater  the  variety  of  occupations  in  a  commu¬ 
nity,  the  greater  the  scope  for  ingenuity  and  talent, 
the  greater  the  reward  for  industry,  and  the  higher 
the  grade  of  individual  and  general  prosperity. 

I  venture  on  an  estimate  of  the  advantages  to  be 
derived  from  an  immigration  of  20,000  persons  an¬ 
nually  for  ten  years,  supposing  their  labour  to  add 
to  the  national  wealth  only  a  quarter  dollar  per 
day,  on  an  average — and  supposing  them  to  bring 
into  the  country  at  the  rate  of  50  dollars  each : — 


No.  of  im¬ 
migrants  in 
the  country 

Value  of 
labour. 

Specie  im¬ 
ported. 

First  year  -  - 
Second  year 
Third  year  -  - 

Fourth  year 

Fifth  year  -  - 

Sixth  year  -  - 

Seventh  year  - 
Eighth  year  - 
Ninth  year  -  - 
Tenth  year  -  - 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

120,000 

140,000 

160,000 

180,000 

200,000 

$ 

1,560,000 

3,120,000 

4,680,000 

6,240,000 

7300,000 

9,360,000 

10,920,000 

12,480,000 

14,040,000 

15,600,000 

$ 

1,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
i, odo, ooo 
•1,000,000 

j  Total  -  -  -  - 

85,800,000 

10,000,000 

96 


Appendix. 

If  we  suppose  each  individual  immigrant  to  be 
worth  to  the  state,  300  dollars,  which  is  a  low  esti¬ 
mate,  the  whole  would  amount  to  the  sum  of 
860,000,000. 

It  has  been  very  gravely  asserted  that  this  coun¬ 
try  is  peculiarly  calculated  for  agriculture;  and  that 
while  it  possesses  so  much  vacant  land,  it  is  impo¬ 
litic  to  take  any  measures  to  accelerate  the  growth 
of  manufactures.  There  are,  nevertheless,  on  the 
contrary,  reasons  in  favour  of  fostering  manufac¬ 
tures  here,  which  do  not  exist  to  the  same  extent  in 
Great  Britain  or  France.  Although  the  United 
States  are  as  highly  blest  with  the  means  of  carry¬ 
ing  on  an  extensive  internal  communication  as  any 
nation  in  the  world,  yet  a  very  large  portion  of  our 
territory  is,  and  must  for  an  age  remain  remote 
from  the  advantages  of  navigation,  and,  without 
the  encouragement  of  manufactures,  can  never  fully 
avail  itself  of  the  bounties  of  nature,  lavished  with 
a  liberal  hand.  This  is  the  situation  of  extensive 
regions  in  Ohio,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  and  the 
interior  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia,  which  are 
70,  80,  or  100  miles  from  any  navigable  stream, 
and  4  or  500  from  the  Atlantic.  Whereas,  there 
are  few  parts  of  England  more  than  £0,  and  of 
France  more  than  50  miles  from  the  means  of  com¬ 
municating  with  that  ocean. 

On  the  12th  of  June,  the  sale  of  flour  at  New 
Orleans  was  dull  at  84*20  to  4.75.  Deduct  the 
expense  of  transportation  from  parts  of  Kentucky 
remote  from  navigation,  and  this  price  will  not  pay 
the  expense  of  cultivation. 

It  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  profit  by  the  errors 
and  misfortunes  of  others — of  the  reverse  of  wis¬ 
dom,  not  to  profit  by  one’s  own.  We  have  had 
ample  and  dear-bought  experience  to  warn  us 
against  the  deleterious  consequences  of  our  present 


Appendix.  97 

policy — but  it  appears  in  vain.  I  have  already 
touched  on  the  consequences  of  our  extravagant, 
uncontrolled  importations  in  1783  and  4.  A  bare 
reference  to  those  produced  by  a  similar  course  in 
1815  and  16,  is  enough.  They  are  too  fresh  in  the 
memory  of  the  many  who  suffered,  and  of  the  few 
who  profited  by  their  sufferings,  to  require  detail. 
But  I  request  your  attention  to  the  period  from 
the  organization  of  our  government  till  the  close  of 
the  late  war. 

From  the  year  1789  till  the  year  1812,  a  period 
of  23  years,  this  country  enjoyed  a  peace  inter¬ 
rupted  only  by  the  short  contest  of  a  few  months 
with  France.  During  a  large  portion  of  the  time, 
our  commerce  flourished.  Our  farmers  had  sure 
markets  and  high  prices  for  their  produce.  Our 
statesmen,  believing  that  we  were  not  “  ripe  for 
manufactures bestowed  no  pains  to  foster  or  pro¬ 
tect  them.  But  the  native  energy  of  our  citizens 
overcame  all  difficulties  so  far  as  regarded  most  of 
the  manufactures  depending  on  manual  labour,  with 
which  they  supplied  the  home  demand,  as  hats, 
shoes,  saddlery,  carriages,  books,  types,  and  a  va¬ 
riety  of  others.  But  in  the  all-important  articles 
of  clothing,  woollens,  cottons,  and  linens,  we  were 
baffled  completely.  We  were  almost  altogether 
clothed  by  Great  Britain.  What  was  the  conse¬ 
quence?  Just  previous  to  the  commencement  of 
the  late  war,  the  nation  owed  a  tribute  to  the  In¬ 
dians  of  6000  blankets,  which  she  was  unable  to 
furnish.  She  was  cut  off  from  British  supplies 
by  the  non-intercourse  law:  and,  by  her  previous 
withering  policy,  was  rendered  unable  to  produce 
them  from  her  own  resources!  The  destitution  of 
these  means  was  proclaimed  to  the  world,  by  a 
formal  proposition  on  the  part  of  the  secretary  of 
war,  to  repeal  the  non-intercourse,  so  as  to  enable 

i 


!)8  Appendix. 

us  to  procure  them  from  Great  Britain!!33  This 
single  fact  is  sufficient  to  determine  the  pernicious 
character  of  the  misguided  policy  which  placed  a 
powerful,  enterprising,  and  industrious  nation  in 
such  a  disgraceful  situation,  and  sacrificed  for  so 
long  a  period,  at  least  10,000,000  of  dollars  an¬ 
nually  for  clothing,  which  our  own  citizens  could 
have  furnished. 

But  this  is  far  from  the  whole  of  the  evil.  So  in¬ 
tense  were  the  sufferings  of  our  soldiers  in  the  war 
on  the  north-western  frontier,  for  want  of  adequate 
clothing,  that  it  is  confidently  asserted,  and  with 
every  appearance  of  truth,  that  as  many  of  them, 
in  certain  stages  of  the  war,  fell  victims  to  the  in¬ 
clemency  of  the  weather,  as  by  the  arms  of  the 
enemy. 

This  ought  to  be  an  eternal  lesson  to  our  states¬ 
men,  against  the  danger,  and  folly  of  trusting  to 

I  have  not  been  able,  after  a  most  diligent  research, 
to  procure  the  report  of  the  secretary  at  war,  soliciting  a 
repeal  of  the  non-intercourse  law — but  I  annex  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  congress  on  the  subject,  which  are  equally 
conclusive — 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S.  Jan.  2,  1812. 

ce  A  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  M’Kee  and  seconded,  that 
“  the  House  do  come  to  the  following  resolution  : 

“Resolved,  That  the  Committee  of  Commerce  and 
“  Manufactures  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expedi- 
“  ency  of  authorizing  by  law,  the  introduction  into  the 
“  United  States  of  such  foreign  goods  as  may  be  necessary 
“  for  the  usual  supplies  of  the  Indian  department,  and  that 
“  they  have  leave  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise. 

“  The  said  resolution  was  read  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the 
“  table. 

“  Mr.  M’Kee  laid  before  the  House  a  letter  from  the 
“  Secretary  of  War,  addressed  to  him  as  chairman  of  the 
‘‘committee  on  Indian  affairs,  stating  the  difficulty  of  pro- 
“  curing  goods  suitable  for  the  Indian  trade,  which  was 
“also  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  ” — Journal?,  1811—12*, 
p,  214 


Appendix .  99 

foreign  supplies  for  the  essential  articles  of  cloth¬ 
ing.  But  the  lesson  was  entirely  lost  upon  them 
at  the  close  of  the  war.  They  allowed  the  chief 
part  of  those  who  had  embarked  their  all  in  esta¬ 
blishments  for  furnishing  the  nation  with  clothing 
during  the  war,  to  be  ruined  for  want  of  protection 
on  the  return  of  peace. 

A  feature  in  our  affairs  far  more  deplorable,  as 
regards  the  national  safety,  remains  to  be  stated. 
Notwithstanding  the  immense  advantages  we  so 
long  possessed,  our  treasury  was  completely  bank¬ 
rupt  in  two  years  !  And  the  utmost  the  govern¬ 
ment  was  able  to  raise  by  imposts,  taxes  and  excises, 
during  the  whole  war,  of  30  months,  was  §  35,642,- 
448  ! — by  loans,  at  usurious  rates,  g  45,172,581 ! — 
and,  to  make  up  the  balance  of  the  expenses  of  the 
war,  recourse  was  had  to  the  issue  of  exchequer 
bills,  to  the  amount  of  g  17,227,280,  which  depre¬ 
ciated  in  the  hands  of  the  public  creditors,  8,  10, 
and  even  12  per  cent. !  This  was  the  calamitous 
situation  of  a  nation,  in  the  vigour  of  its  youth, 
which  in  its  infancy  had  maintained  a  struggle  with 
the  power  of  G.  Britain  for  seven  years — a  nation, 
a  large  portion  of  whose  resources  had  been  squan¬ 
dered  to  support  foreign  industry  for  the  preceding 
twenty-three  years!  The  history  of  the  world  pre¬ 
sents  no  instance  of  a  nation  with  so  many  and  such 
transcendant  blessings,  exhibiting  such  a  state  of  fi¬ 
nancial  decrepitude  in  the  same  short  space  of  time. 
The  miserable  policy  which  produced  such  a  state  of 
things  will  stand  condemned  as  long  as  history  re¬ 
mains. 

It  is  worth  while  to  devote  a  few  moments  to  the 
consideration  of  our  prospects  in  the  event  of  be¬ 
ing  involved  in  another  war,  a  contingency  of  which 
a  wise  statesman  ought  never  to  lose  sight.  As 
our  government  depends  for  revenue  almost  alto¬ 
gether  on  impost,  contrary  to  the  universal  practice 


100  Appendix. 

of  other  nations,  a  war  would  at  once  cut  off  the 
chief  part  of  our  resources.  Thus  this  instrument 
of  finance,  like  a  treacherous  friend,  will  always 
desert  us  in  our  greatest  need.  We  should  be 
obliged  to  recur  to  direct  taxes,  excises,  and  loans. 
And  it  is  a  most  melancholy  truth,  that  our  citi¬ 
zens,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  capitalists,  are 
now  far  less  able  to  support  the  necessary  burdens, 
being  generally  in  much  more  depressed  circum¬ 
stances,  than  they  were  in  1812.  Of  this  no  doubt 
can  remain,  on  a  view  of  the  statements  of  the  si¬ 
tuation.  of  the  country,  as  given  by  various  mem¬ 
bers  of  congress,  and  quoted  in  a  preceding  part 
of  this  address.  And  if  our  treasury  became  bank¬ 
rupt  in  1814,  and  the  resources  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  were  exhausted  in  so  short  a  space,  what  a 
melancholy  prospect  presents  itself  to  our  view  in 
the  event  of  a  future  war  ? 

In  order  duly  to  appreciate  our  policy  and  its  unfor¬ 
tunate  effects,  it  may  be  proper  to  take  a  view  of  the 
result  of  the  British  policy,  diametrically  opposite  to 
ours.  Our  duties  are,  with  few  exceptions,  calculated 
to  encourage  the  importation  of  foreign  manufactures, 
which  depress  and  crush  our  domestic  industry. 
The  duties  of  Great  Britain  are  regulated  so  as  to 
exclude  every  thing  with  which  she  can  supply 
herself.  I  have  shown  the  effect  of  ours  in  a  war 
of  30  months.  Now  let  us  see  the  result  of  her’s 
in  a  war  of  above  twenty  years.  6<  The  tree  is 
known  by  its  fruit.’9 

Great  Britain  raised  during  that  war  no  less  than 
§  7,038,000,000,  of  which  g  4,653,000,000  were  by 
impost,  direct  taxes  and  excises — and  the  remain¬ 
der  by  loans. 

Her  subjects  felt  this  enormous  taxation  less  than 
our  citizens  did  our  very  light  taxes.  Her  subsi¬ 
dies  to  foreign  powers  amounted  to  S6  247,500,000. 


Appendix.  .  101 

If  the  contrast  during  the  war  was  so  striking, 
it  is  no  less  so  at  present.  She  has  remitted  within 
the  last  two  years,  taxes  to  the  amount  of  g  28,237,- 
500 ;  has  an  annual  surplus  of  g  22,500,000,  with 
which  she  has  established  an  efficient  sinking  fund ; 
and  has  paid  off  a  very  large  amount  of  her  na¬ 
tional  debt.  She  has  been  enabled  to  reduce  g697,- 
500,000  of  her  debt  from  5  to  4  per  cent. — and 
g  310,000,000  of  4  per  cents,  to  3^.  Her  domes¬ 
tic  exports  are  annually  increasing  in  amount.  Her 
manufactures  are  extending  astonishingly.  Her  ex¬ 
ports  of  cotton  goods,  which  in  1820  were  $74,- 
750,000,  were  in  1823,  g  99,000,000.  She  draws 
wealth  from  every  quarter  of  the  world  with  which 
she  has  intercourse,  so  that  she  has  probably  at 
this  hour  more  specie  than  half  Europe  and  the 
whole  of  the  United  States.  Her  merchants  are 
the  general  bankers  of  all  the  distressed  govern¬ 
ments  of  the  new  and  old  world.  Loans  have  been 
made,  dr  instalments  paid  during  the  last  year,  in 
London  to  the  amount  of  £  50,000,000  or  g225,- 
000,000.34  A  loan  of  a  fifth  part  of  the  sum  to  any 
foreign  nation  would  reduce  all  the  banks  in  the 
United  States  to  bankruptcy,  and  overspread  the 
land  with  devastation  and  ruin. 

34  Extract  from  a  late  London  paper . 

“  England  may  be  denominated  the  “  Great  Banking 
House”  of  Europe.  Within  the  last  year  she  has  loaned 
to  other  states,  over  ^50,000,000  The  following  is  a  list 
of  loans  paid  or  contracted  to  be  paid,  in  1824. 

French  19,900,000  $  Brought  over  ^32,120,000 


Hutch  -  -  2*000, 0p0  J  Buenos  Ayres  1,000,000 

Colombian  -  4,000,000  5  Greek  -  -  892,000 

Brazil  -  -  2,500,000  ?  Mexican  -  8,800,000 

Portuguese  -  500,000  j  Spanish  -  5,000,0 00 

Austrian  -  500,000 1  Mines  -  -  500,000 

Peruvian  -  2,720,000  j I  Neapolitan  -  2,000,000 

Carried  over  £  32,120,000  \  Total  -  £  50,312,000” 

i  2 


102  Appendix. 

Having  already  glanced  at  the  actual  situation  of 
this  country,  I  shall  confine  myself  here  to  a  brief 
retrospect.  In  the  sixth  year  of  peace,  our  revenue 
having  fallen  short,  it  was  proposed  to  have  re¬ 
course  to  an  excise.  But  it  was  formally  declared 
by  a  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States,  that  “  the  imposition  of  an  ex¬ 
cise  in  that  season  of  extreme  distress ,  would  be 
unwise!”  and  that 4t  if  imposed ,  it  would  he  difficult 
to  collect ;  and ,  if  collected ,  it  would ,  in  some  parts 
of  the  union ,  he  in  paper  little  available !”  In  the 
year  1822,  our  government  made  an  attempt  to 
convert  SB, 000, 000  of  7  per  cents,  and  §18,000,000 
of  6  per  cents,  into  fives,  irredeemable  for  fifteen 
years — but  were  unable  to  effect  it.  Our  sinking 
fund  has  been  absorbed  and  sunk  into  oblivion. 
And  we  have  had,  after  five  years  of  peace,  to  bor¬ 
row  S  8,000,000  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  go¬ 
vernment! 

What  a  glorious  triumph  the  preceding  facts  fur¬ 
nish  for  the  British  policy,  as  regards  national 
resources!  What  a  heart-rending  contrast  our  af¬ 
fairs  exhibit! — Can  a  policy  producing  such  blight¬ 
ing  consequences,  be  other  than  deleterious? 

I  beg  attention  to  one  more  strong  and  striking 
contrast  between  our  policy  and  that  of  Great  Bri¬ 
tain.  The  manufacturers  of  that  country  are  con¬ 
stantly  struggling  to  engross  the  supply  of  foreign 
markets .  In  this  they  are  aided  by  the  government 
and  the  merchants,  the  former  of  whom  regard 
manufactures  as  the  most  certain  basis  on  which  to 
erect  the  edifice  of  national  prosperity.  The  lat¬ 
ter  regard  the  interest  and  prosperity  of  the  manu¬ 
facturers  as  identified  with  their  own.  Our  manu¬ 
facturers  have  to  struggle — not  for  foreign  markets , 
from  nearly  all  of  which  they  are  excluded.  No. 


Appendix.  103 

Their  straggle  is  for  a  share  of  the  domestic  mar¬ 
ket — for  the  supply  of  their  own  fellow  citizens — 
and  this  struggle  they  are  obliged  to  maintain  with 
very  unequal  odds,  not  only  with  the  foreign  manu¬ 
facturers  and  merchants,  but  with  their  own  go¬ 
vernment  and  their  own  merchants — the  latter  of 
whom  have,  from  the  commencement  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  the  present  hour,  resisted  every  serious  at¬ 
tempt  to  protect  their  fellow  citizens  from  the 
overwhelming  competition  of  foreign  rivals — and 
the  former  has  uniformly  regarded  them  with 
jealousy! 

Whatever  high  degree  of  talents,  individual 
members  of  congress  may  possess,  it  is  to  be  pre¬ 
sumed  that  there  scarcely  can  be  found  a  man 
among  them,  who,  in  those  moments  when  self  love 
leads  us  to  appreciate  our  intellectual  powers,  at 
their  utmost  value,  could  fondly  flatter  himself  that 
his  opinions  should  have  more  weight  with  this  na¬ 
tion  than  those  of  Franklin,  Jefferson,  and  Hamil¬ 
ton,  three  of  the  most  highly  gifted  men  who  have 
figured  in  the  American  annals,  whose  sentiments 
are  clear  and  decisive  on  this  subject,  and  who  pro¬ 
nounce  the  strongest  condemnation  of  the  system 
we  pursue.  Out  of  the  numerous  maxims  of  those 
illustrious  citizens,  I  shall  quote  a  few,  and  trust 
that  their  cogency  will  settle  the  minds  of  those 
who  are  wavering  on  this  important  subject — con¬ 
firm  those  who  advocate  a  change  in  our  policy — 
and  induce  those  who  are  opposed  to  that  change, 
to  reconsider  the  subject,  laying  aside,  as  far  as 
practicable,  inveterate  prejudices. 

I  commence  with  Thomas  Jeflerson,  whose  early 
opinions  on  the  subject  have  been  often  quoted 
against  the  protection  of  manufactures. 

“  Where  a  nation  imposes  high  duties  on  our  produc- 


104  Appendix. 

"  tions,  OR  PROHIBITS  THEM  ALTOGETHER,  IT 
“  MAY  BE  PROPER  FOR  US  TO  DO  THE  SAME  BY 

“  THEIRS — -first  burdening  or  excluding  those  productions 
“  ‘which  they  bring  here  in  competition  -with  our  (nun  of  the 
"same  kind ;  selecting  next  such  manufactures  as  'toe  take 
(ifrom  them  in  greatest  quantity ,  and  -which  at  the  same  time 
"  we  could  the  soonest  furnish  to  ourselves ,  or  obtain  from 
“  other  countries;  imposing  on  them  duties  Jight  at  first, 
“but  heavier  and  heavier  afterwards,  as  other  channels  of 
“  supply  open. 

“  Such  duties,  having  the  effect  of  indirect  encourage- 
"  ment  to  domestic  manufactures  of  the  same  kind,  may 
“  induce  the  manufacturer  to  come  himself  into  these  states, 
“  where  cheaper  subsistence,  equal  laws,  and  a  vent  for 
“  his  wares,  free  of  duty,  may  insure  him  the  highest  pro- 
“fits  from  his  skill  and  industry.  The  oppressions  of  our 
“  agriculture  in  foreign  parts  would  thus  be  made  the  occasion 
“ of  relieving  it  from  a  dependance  on  the  councils  and  conduct 
* 6  of  others,  and  of  promoting  arts,  manufactures ,  and  pop  ula- 
“  tion  at  home.”3* 

Next  appears  Alexander  Hamilton,  a  tower  of 
strength  on  this  subject. 

“There  appear  strong  reasons  to  regard  the  foreign  de- 
"mand  for  our  surplus  produce  as  too  uncertain  a  reliance , 
“and  to  desire  a  substitute  for  it,  IN  AN  EXTENSIVE 
“  DOMESTIC  MARKET.”36 

“  Manufacturers,  who  constitute  the  most  numerous 
“  class,  after  the  cultivators  of  land,  are  for  that  reason 
“  the  principal  consumers  of  the  surplus  of  their  labour.”37 

“This  idea  of  an  extensive  domestic  market  for  the 
“  surplus  produce  of  the  soil  is  of  the  first  consequence. 
"It  is,  of  all  things,  THAT  WHICH  MOST  EFFECTU¬ 
ALLY  CONDUCES  TO  A  FLOURISHING  STATE 
“OF  AGRICULTURE.33” 

“The  establishment  of  manufactures  is  calculated  not 

35  Jefferson’s  Report  on  the  Privileges  and  Restrictions 
of  the  Commerce  of  the  United  States  in  Foreign  Coun¬ 
tries. 

36  Hamilton’s  Report  on  Manufactures,  p.  35. 

37  Ibid.  3S  Ibid. 


Appendix.  105 

“  only  to  increase  the  general  stock  of  useful  and  produc¬ 
tive  labour;  but  even  to  improve  the  state  of  agriculture  in 
“particular;  certainly  to  advance  the  interests  of  those 
“  who  are  engaged  in  it.”39 

“  Though  last,  not  least  in  favour,”  Dr.  Frank¬ 
lin  : — 

“  Foreign  luxuries,  and  needless  manufactures  imported 
“and  used  in  a  nation,  INCREASE  THE  PEOPLE  OF 
“THE  NATION  THAT  FURNISHES  THEM,  AND 
“DIMINISH  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  NATION  THAT 
“  USES  THEM.”40 

“  Laws,  therefore,  that  prevent  such  importations,  and, 
“on  the  contrary,  promote  the  exportation  of  manufac- 
“  tures  to  be  consumed  in  foreign  countries,  may  be  called, 
“  (with  respect  to  the  people  that  make  them,)  generative 
“laws,  as ,  BY  INCREASING  SUBSISTENCE,  THEY 
“ENCOURAGE  MARRIAGE.”41 

“Such  laws,  likewise,  strengthen  a  nation  doubly,  by 
“ increasing  its  own  people ,  and  diminishing  its  neigh¬ 
bours.”42 

I  shall  to  these  strong  and  pointed  maxims,  add 
the  sentiments  of  one  of  the  most  able  political  eco¬ 
nomists  of  Europe,  Anderson,  who  wrote  a  cele¬ 
brated  treatise  on  the  promotion  of  national  in¬ 
dustry. 

“  No  earthly  method  remains  for  encouraging  agricul- 
“  ture,  where  it  has  not  reared  up  its  head,  that  can  be 
“  considered  in  any  way  efficacious ,  but  the  establishing  pro - 
“ per  manufactures  in  those  countries  you  wish  to  encourage  .”43 

“  If  a  manufacture  be  established  in  any  rich  and  fertile 
“  country,  by  convening  a  number  of  people  in  one  place, 
“  who  must  all  be  fed  by  the  farmer ,  without  interfering 
“  with  any  of  his  necessary  operations,  THEY  ESTA- 
“  BLISH  A  READY  MARKET  FOR  THE  PRODUCE 
“  OF  HIS  FARM,  AND  THUS  THROW  MONEY  IN- 
“TO  HIS  HANDS,  AND  GIVE  SPIRIT  AND  ENERGY 
“  TO  HIS  CULTURE.”44 

39  Hamilton’s  Report  on  Manufactures,  p.  35. 

40  Franklin,  iv.  p.  189.  41  Ibid.  42  Ibid. 

43  Anderson  on  Industry,  p.  70.  44  Idem,  37. 


106 


Appendix. 


“  Insurmountable  obstacles  lie  in  the  way  of  a  farmer  in 
“  an  unimproved  country,  who  has  nothing  but  commerce 
‘‘alone  to  depend  upon  for  providing  a  market  for  the 
“  produce  of  his  farm.”45 

The  case  of  Hamilton,  as  I  have  observed  on 
various  occasions,  is  peculiarly  strong  and  striking. 
He  was  the  acknowledged  leader  of  a  powerful 
,  and,  as  such,  attracted  a  ten-fold  share  of 


the  hostility  of  its  adversaries,  at  a  period  when 
party  spirit  raged  with  extraordinary  violence.  Of 
the  manufacturers  throughout  the  United  States, 
nine-tenths  were  jealous  of  him,  and  hostile  to  his 
politics.  His  associations  were  chiefly  among,  and 
of  course  his  bias  leaned  towards,  the  mercantile 
corps.  He  could  not  consequently  be  suspected 
for  a  moment  of  being  led  astray  to  favour  the  views 
of  his  political  enemies.  His  maxims  in  favour 
of  manufactures,  are  therefore  entitled  to  the  high¬ 
est  degree  of  attention.  Had  he  declared  himself 
averse  to  their  protection,  there  might  be  some 
reason  to  suspect  him  of  being  biassed  by  resent¬ 
ment  for  the  hostility  of  the  manufacturers,  and  by 
his  predilection  in  favour  of  the  commercial  interest. 
This  able  statesman  directed  all  the  energies  of 
his  powerful  mind  to  this  great  subject,  in  pur¬ 
suance  of  a  requisition  of  congress.  He  availed 
himself  of  the  knowledge  of  all  the  writers  who 
had  gone  before  him,  and  embodied  in  a  small  vo¬ 
lume  the  collected  wisdom  of  ages,  one  of  the  proud¬ 
est  monuments  of  practical  policy  which  the  world 
has  ever  produced.  That  this  is  not  extravagant 
panegyric,  will  not  be  controverted  by  any  man 
who  reads  it  with  due  attention,  and  with  a  mind 
untrammelled  by  plausible  but  deleterious  theories, 
fraught  with  the  ruin  of  those  countries  which  are 
deluded  into  their  adoption.  Tested  by  the  expe- 


45  Anderson  on  Industry,  p.  7 0. 


Appendix.  107 

rienee  of  the  prosperous  as  well  as  the  wretched 
nations  of  Europe,  his  maxims  stand  the  severest 
scrutiny. 


I  well  know  how  unpopular  many  of  those  sen¬ 
timents  are  with  a  large  portion  of  my  hearers,  and 
of  this  community — as  well  as  the  odium  that  always 
attaches  to  those  who  encounter  public  prejudices. 
These  considerations  have  great  weight,  and  would 
be  sufficient  to  impose  silence  on  me  in  any  cause 
of  minor  magnitude.  But  convinced  that  the 
“  wealth,  power,  and  resources”  of  the  nation,  as 
well  as  individual  prosperity  and  happiness,  are 
deeply  interested  in  the  question,  I  could  not  for 
a  moment  hesitate  to  pursue  my  course  under  all 
the  responsibility  with  which  it  is  connected. 


Extracts  from  Alexander  Hamilton's  Report  on  Manufactures . 

“  Though  it  were  true,  that  the  immediate  and  certain 
<e  effect  of  regulations  controlling  the  competition  of  fo- 
“  reign  with  domestic  fabrics  was  an  increase  of  price,  it 
is  universally  true,  that  the  contrary  is  the  ultimate  ef- 
“  feet  with  every  successful  manufacture.  When  a  domes - 
i{  tic  manufacture  has  attained  to  perfection ,  and  has  engaged 
“  in  the  prosecution  of  it  a  competent  number  of  persons ,  it  in - 
“  variably  becomes  cheaper.  Being  free  from  the  heavy 
“  charges  which  attend  the  importation  of  foreign  com* 
“modities,  it  can  be  afforded,  and  accordingly  seldom 
“  or  never  fails  to  be  sold  cheaper,  in  process  of  time, 
“  than  was  the  foreign  article  for  which  it  is  a  substitute. 
“  The  internal  competition ,  -which  tabes  place,  soon  does  arc  ay 
“  every  thing  like  monopoly,  and  by  degrees  reduces  the  price 
u  of  the  article  to  the  minimum  of  a  reasonable  profit  on  the 
“  capital  employed.  This  accords  -with  the  reason  of  the  thing, 
“  and  with  experience 

“  Whence  it  follows,  that  it  is  the  interest  of  a  comma* 
<c  nity,  with  a  view  to  eventual  and  permanent  economy, 
t£  to  encourage  the  growth  of  manufactures,  in  a  national 


(108  ) 

“  view,  a  temporary  enhancement  of  price  must  always  be  well 
“  compensated  by  a  permanent  reduction  of  it” 

“  The  trade  of  a  country  which  is  both  manufacturing 
“  and  agricultural,  will  be  more  lucrative  and  prosperous, 
“  than  that  of  a  country,  which  is  merely  agricultural.” 

“  While  the  necessities  of  nations  exclusively  devoted 
“  to  agriculture,  for  the  fabrics  of  manufacturing  states, 
“  are  constant  and  regular,  the  wants  of  the  latter  for  the 
“ products  of  the  former ,  are  liable  to  very  considerable  flue - 
“  tuations  and  interruptions.  The  great  inequalities  re- 
“  suiting  from  differences  of  seasons,  have  been  elsewhere 
“  remarked  ;  this  uniformity  of  demand  on  one  side,  and 
“  unsteadiness  of  it,  on  the  other,  must  necessarily  have  a 
“  tendency  to  cause  the  general  course  of  the  exchange  of 
“commodities  between  the  parties,  to  turn  to  the  disad- 
“  vantage  of  the  merely  agricultural  states. 

“  From  these  circumstances  collectively,  two  important 
“inferences  are  to  be  drawn  ;  I.  That  there  is  always  a 
“  higher  probability  of  a  favourable  balance  of  trade,  in 
“  regard  to  countries,  in  which  manufactures,  founded  on 
“  the  basis  of  a  thriving  agriculture,  flourish,  than  in  re- 
“  gard  to  those,  which  are  confined  wholly  or  almost 
“  wholly  to  agriculture  ;  II.  (which  is  also  a  consequence 
“  of  the  first,)  that  countries  of  the  former  description  are 
“  likely  to  possess  more  pecuniary  wealth,  or  money ,  than  those 
“  in  the  latter” 

“  The  importations  of  manufactured  supplies  seem  invari - 
“  able  to  drain  the  merely  agricidtural  people  of  their  wealth . 
“  Let  the  situation  of  the  manufacturing  countries  of  Eu- 
“  rope  be  compared  in  this  particular,  with  that  of  coun- 
“  tries  which  only  cultivate,  and  the  disparity  will  be 
“  striking.” 

“The  West  India  Islands,  the  soils  of  which  are  the 
“  most  fertile  ;  and  the  nation  which  in  the  greatest  degree 
“  supplies  the  rest  of  the  world,  with  the  precious  me- 
“  tals  ;  exchange  to  a  loss  with  almost  every  other  coun- 
“  try.” 

“  The  uniform  appearance  of  an  abundance  of  specie, 
“  as  the  concomitant  of  a  flourishing  state  of  manufactures, 
“  and  of  the  reverse,  where  they  do  not  prevail,  afford  a 
“  strong  presumption  of  their  favourable  operation  upon 
“  the  wealth  of  a  country.” 

THE  END. 


